ABDUL REHMAN Versus State

ORDER

ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.- --Urgency application is granted.

2. Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his released on bail in F.I.R. No.13 of 2014 registered under section 23(1)(A) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, Police Station Khokarapar, Karachi, applicant Abdul Rehman son of Muhammad Ismail is seeking his release on bail through instant bail application.

3. The post-arrest bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, vide her order dated 10-2-2014, hence, this bail application.

4. Briefly the allegation against the applicant/accused is that he was found in his possession one unlicensed Pistol of .30 bore without number loaded with magazine along with four live rounds, hence this F.I.R.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant and the alleged recovery of Pistol has been foisted upon him. All the witnesses are the police officials since there is clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. The investigation has been completed and the challan has also been submitted, the applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation, therefore, he has prayed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. opposed grant of bail application on the ground that recovery is effected from the possession of applicant/accused in presence of police officials who have no inimical terms with present applicant. He has also contended that the punishment of alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. which shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years with fine.

7. It is an admitted position that case has been challaned. Applicant is no more required for investigation. The case of prosecution rest upon the evidence of police officials, therefore, no question does arise for tampering of their evidence at the hands of applicant. Since the whole case of the prosecution rest upon the evidence of the police officials, therefore, their evidence is required to be minutely scrutinized at the time of trial whether the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. allegedly committed by the applicant in a fashion as narrated by complainant or otherwise. There is nothing on the record to show that the applicant/ accused is a previous convict or has been arrested in a case of similar nature in past.

8. As far as the contention of learned A.P.-G. regarding involvement of the applicant/accused in a case punishment of which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. is concerned, it would be suffice to say that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep the people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death, transportation of life or ten years unless reasonable ground appears to exist to disclose their complicity. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of bail granted to him but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjusti-fied incarceration of at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the longer run.

9. In view of above discussion, the applicant has successfully made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, applicant/ accused be released on bail after his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

MWA/A-67/Sindh Bail granted.