MUHAMMAAD HASHIM SEHTO vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed on behalf of applicant Muhammad Hashim Sehto, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the police department, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 95 of 2008 registered at Police Station Tando Bago, District Badin, following the alleged recovery of a Kalashnikov from his possession, leading to a case under the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant procedural law and the recovery requires further inquiry. The court held that the applicant has made out a case for further inquiry, noting that the punishment for the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the veracity of the recovery requires evidence. The court consequently allowed the bail application, granting the concession of bail subject to the furnishing of required surety. The key principle laid down is that where an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause and the circumstances of recovery raise a likelihood of a foisted case requiring further inquiry, the accused is entitled to bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the charged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the alleged recovery of a weapon without a private mashir under doubtful circumstances constitute a case of further inquiry warranting bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance
ORDER
1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.--- This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant/accused Muhammad Hashim Sehto who has been arrested on 8-8-2008 for his involvement in Crime Case No,95 of 2008 registered at Police Station Tando Bago District Badin and the trial Court being 1st Additional Sessions Judge Badin rejected the bail application.
2. That the applicant/accused Muhammad Hashim who is A.S.-I. In police department was posted at Tando Bago police station when he was involved in Crime No,70 of 2008 for facilitating the escape of accused Kamran Khan Tasori who being a high profile prisoner/custody was allegedly led to escape by the applicant/accused, who on 8-8-2008 was arrested and a K.K. Was recovered from his possession hence a case under section 13-D Arms Ordinance was registered against the accused.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has argued that the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. No private Mashir has been associated with the recovery and placing reliance upon the case of Darya Khan v. State 2004 YLR 2001 (Karachi) learned counsel has argued for bail.
4. ' Learned State counsel has not opposed the bail application.
5. Considering that bail has been allowed by this Court the main case being Crime No,70 of 2008 registered at Police Station Tando Bago in my opinion the applicant/accused is entitled to the same concession in the present case where the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As the punishment provided under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance being 7 years further recovery under the circumstances as shown by the police there is every likelihood that the police may have foisted the case upon the applicant/accused and the same would require evidence to determine the veracity of the recovery till such time in my opinion a case of further inquiry has been made out keeping in view the nature of allegations of the recovery, consequently I allow this bail application and the applicant/accused be released on bail upon his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.