| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2888 = 2010 SLD 2888 = 2010 MLD 344 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Bail Application No. 1170 and M.A. No. 4191 of 2009, decided on 20th November, 2009.
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J
Criminal Bail Application No. 1170 and M.A. No. 4191 of 2009, decided on 20th November, 2009.
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J
SAMAD BALOCH---Applicant
VERSUS
THE STATE---Respondent
Law:
Section:
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---1. Granted subject to all just exceptions. 2. This bail application under section 497, Cr.P.C: is filed by the applicant/accused feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Malir at Karachi, in Sessions Case No. 250 of 2007, dated 16-9-2009 in F.I.R. No.69 of 2007 under sections 147, 148, 149, 353/324, P.P.C. As per contents of F.I.R. on 23-5-2007 at about 10-00 hours the police party was on illaqa gasht for prevention of crime. On information during ghast by Mukhbar-e-Khas that some absconders were present in Gali of Anso Goth. On such information the policy party reached at the place where according to policy party narcotics dealer Aftan Ahmed @ Tabbo, son of Abdul Hassan with other companion namely Abdul Samad son of Sahir Baloch, Shahjahan alias Baba son of Ali Muhammad alias Lala, Arif alias Mama son of Ghulam Hussain, Akber alias Kakra son of Ellahi Bux, Sohail alias Dada son of Abdullah, Fida Hussain alias Fido son of Muhammad Ishaque, Haji Hussain son of not known, were present, duly armed, standing in the Gali. A.S.-I. Ghulam Jafar tried to catch them with the help of his companion but they opened fire from their respective weapons upon the police party, who also started firing from their SMB but the accused ran away in the Gall by firing, hence a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 324, P.P.C. was registered against the accused persons. Challan No.50 of 2007 was submitted on 11-6-2007 before the learned VI Judicial Magistrate, Malir, Karachi, wherein no arrest of the accused were shown. The applicant/accused was apprehended on 13-8-2009 and is presently in Jail custody. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the F.I.R. is bogus as the incidence mentioned in the F.I.R. never took place and the accused is falsely implicated in such F.I.R. According to the learned counsel neither the accused was arrested at the place of incidence nor there is any eye-witness or identification about the occurrence of incident or the involvement of accused is the alleged crime. It is further argued that offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 193…