GHULAM YASEEN Versus State

ORDER

1. NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.--- Applicant/accused seeks bail in Crime No.75 of 2012 registered against the accused at Police Station Radhan Station for an offence punishable under section 13(d) Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. are that on 1-10-2012 at 2350 hours, A.S.-I. Muhammad Afzal Solangi, Incharge of P.P Sindhi Butra lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Radhan Station stating therein that accused Ghulam Yaseen son of Muhammad Hashim by caste Soomro resident of Lahori Muhalla Larkana, arrested in case Crime No.74 of 2012 of Police Station Radhan Station along with unlicensed Kalashnikov at the spot, while keeping unlicensed Kalashnikov has committed an offence punishable under section 13(d) A.O therefore, A.S.-I. lodged case against accused on behalf of State vide Crime No.75 of 2012 under section 13(d) A.O.

3. After completion of usual investigation, challan was submitted against the accused. Bail application on behalf of the applicant/accused Ghulam Yaseen was moved before learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, same was rejected by order dated 18-10-2012 thereafter applicant/accused approached to this Court for similar relief through the instant bail application.

4. Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, learned advocate for the applicant/accused contended that since in the main case bearing Crime No.74 of 2012 of Police Station Radhan Station, the present applicant Ghulam Yaseen is granted concession of bail by this Court today therefore, he is also entitled to concession of bail in this case which is off shoot case under section 13(d) A.O. He further submits that both the mashirs of arrest and recovery are police personnel and being subordinate of complainant they are interested. He further submits that prior to the instant case, the father of applicant namely Muhammad Hashim Soomro filed Constitutional Petitions bearing No.2034 of 2010 and 733 of 2006 against the police officials as such applicant has been falsely implicated by the police in this case only to take revenge. Lastly it is contended that rifle has not been sent to the ballistic expert for report.

5. Learned State counsel concedes to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and recorded no objection to the grant of bail application.

6. I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused for the reasons that in the main case bearing Crime No.74 of 2012 registered against the present applicant Ghulam Yaseen at Police Station Radhan Station under sections 324 and 353, P.P.C., bail has been granted to the applicant by this Court today. All P.Ws. are police officials. The K.K secured from the applicant was not sent to ballistic expert for report. Case has been challaned and there is no question of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Enmity with police has also been alleged.

7. For my above stated reasons prima facie a case against the applicant/accused Ghulam Yaseen requires further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, concession of bail is extended to the applicant/accused subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

8. Needless to mention here that the above observations are tentative in nature and trial Court shall not be influenced by the same at the trial.

9. MWA/G-2/K Bail granted.