ABDUL QADIR Versus State

ORDER

1. NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J .---The applicant is facing trial in Crime No.23 of 2006 of Police Station, Jagan at Hamayoon, under sections 324, 353 and 34, P.P.C.

2. The allegation against the applicant is that he has directly fired upon the police party and was arrested at the spot with K.K., which was without permit.

3. The bail application has been moved before the trial Court, which was rejected on the ground that admittedly the applicant at the time of incident was armed with K.K. which was recovered from him and empties were recovered from scene of offence, which indicates that encounter has taken place as claimed by the police.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that he along with co-accused made direct firing at the police party, who also retaliated the same, but it is astonishing to note that none from the police party has sustained any injury and this fact alone makes the prosecution case doubtful, which needs further enquiry.

5. The learned State counsel has conceded to the grant of bail on the ground that the applicant was accused of ineffective firing upon the police party.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The allegation against the applicant is of ineffective firing on the police party and his arrest at the spot and recovery of incriminating material from his possession. The applicant was charged with offence under section 324, P.P.C., which is punishable to the extent of imprisonment of 10 years and offence under section 353, P.P.C., which is bailable and punishable with imprisonment of 2 years. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34, has set the criteria for grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment of 10 years and less and has held as under: --

8. "It, is crystal clear that in bailable offences the grant of bail is a right and not favour, whereas in non-bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but concession/grace. Section 497, Cr.P.C. divided non-bailable offences into two categories i.e. (i) offences punishable with death, imprisonment of life or less than ten years. The principle to be deduced from this provision of law is that in non-bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years) the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. So the bail will be declined only in extraordinary and exceptional cases, for example:

(a) where there is likelihood of abscondence of the accused;

(b) where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence;

(c) where there is danger of the offence being repeated if the accused is released on bail;

(d) where the accused is a previous convict."

9. In the present case since no injury was caused to the personnel of police party the possibility of awarding of lesser punishment cannot be overruled. I am, therefore, satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that, the applicant has committed non-bailable offence.

10. Following the principle laid down in the above reported case, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case of grant of bail. The bail is granted to the applicant subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

11. The bail was granted to the applicant by a short order passed today and above are the reasons in support thereof.

12. H.B.T./A-89/K Bail granted.