HUSSAINI Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. Applicant, Hussaini, is facing trial in a case arising out of F.I.R. No.86 of 2004 of P.S. Risala, Karachi for offence under sections 3, 4 and 6, Explosive Substance Act.

2. The bail plea of the applicant was dismissed by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South vide order dated 28-7-2004.

3. The prosecution story as enunciated in the F.I.R. is that on 10-7-2004 complainant S.-I.P. Tasawwar Ameer along with Police Party on the pointation of accused Sikandar Anam Raja, involved in Crime No.74 of 2004 under sections 3/5, Official Secret Act, 1923 read with sections 3/4/6, Explosive Act P. S. Artillary Maidan, Karachi, reached at 4 th Floor, Room No.19, Pan Mandi, Nanakwara Karachi and found accused Hussaini at the gate of his house, inquired about the formula of preparation of bomb. During interrogation the accused disclosed that he knows ten methods how to prepare and spoil the bomb. The accused then led the police party to his house and on his pointation recovered the formulas of preparation of bomb, lying in Almirah, consisting of 34 pages which were typed in English.

4. The investigation followed and in due course police submitted challan before the competent Court of law.

5. I have heard Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Habibur Rasheed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that case against the applicant is false. It has, further, been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the written substance pertaining the method that how to make the bombs has been foisted upon the applicant by the police officials with malice and enmity as the said materials can easily be down loaded from internet which is available on different web sites and every one can visit such web sites without any licence and permission. In this respect he has attached copy of address of the web site with this bail application. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel that the applicant has been involved in the false case of this nature only because, on one hand, he refused to meet the demand of police officials/officers of Risala Police Station in respect of monthly Bhatta which was being imposed by them on account of good earning by the applicant from his business of Sweet Shop near City Courts and on the other hand since he had already some family disputes with the main accused upon whose statement the said officials/officers of Police Station Risala, having already looking for some reason to implicate the applicant in a false case. It has, further, been contended that perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. reveals that the ingredients of sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, are missing and no offence as alleged borne out. In this regard he referred to definitions of sections 3, 4 and 6 of the said Act.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail on the grounds that the applicant has been booked in a case for committing offence punishment of which goes upto 14 years and at this stage it will not be appropriate to grant the bail.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the respective parties and have also perused the record.

9. Perusal of record reveals that different formulas for preparation of bombs were recovered from the applicant which facts leads us to understand that by the said act he was capable to prepare bombs, blast of which could have created chaos in the city by taking the circumstances to the terrorism which is increasing day by day, and the lives of the innocent persons have been scaled at risk. Further more, it has also come on record that the applicant is an Indian Agent linked with Indian High Officials besides the fact that the applicant has not produced any material or documentary evidence for his false implication in this case. Moreover, punishment of sections 3, 4 and 6 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, with which the applicant has been charged comes within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

10. In view of what has been discussed above I am not inclined to admit the applicant on bail and therefore his bail application is dismissed.

11. Cr. B. A. No.713 of 2004 stands disposed of.

12. H.B.T./H-27/K Bail application dismissed.