MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE
ORDER
1. The applicant seeks bail in Crime No.433/89 of P.S. Chakiwara, registered on 12‑10‑1989 at 0130 hours under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. He moved a bail application before the Ist Additional Sessions Judge (South) Karachi, which was rejected by order, dated 10‑3‑1991. Criminal B.A. No.274/91 was filed before this Court, which was withdrawn on 3‑4‑1991. The applicant repeated his bail application before the trial Court, which was also rejected by order dated 4‑7‑1991 and in these circumstances he has filed the present bail application.
2. The learned Advocates for the applicant have contended that in Criminal BA. No.273/91 before this Court the same applicant Haji Muhammad Aslam was granted bail in a case under sections 307, 353, 34, P.P.C. of the same police station registered on 11‑10‑1989, which was Crime No.432/89. Besides the others, one of the grounds for grant of bail in that application was that no proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of Cr.P.C. were taken against him and the case‑law reported in 1990 PCr.LJ 2055 (Mumtaz v. The State) was considered. Another judgment, which was relied upon, is reported in 1986 SCMR 166 (Hameed Gul v. Soorat Khan and others). It is contended that the allegation against the applicant in Crime No.433/88 is that. while he alongwith co‑accused were moving in a jeep, the applicant seeing the police party had escaped while others were arrested and from the search of the Jeep 20 kilos of Charas and 250 grams of Heroin were allegedly recovered. It is contended that since no proceedings were taken against the applicant under sections 87 and 88 of Cr.P.C., merely because he was arrested on 10‑2‑1991, it could not be said that the applicant was an absconder. It is also contended that the jeep in question does not belong to the applicant, but the same belongs to one Wali Muhammad to whom it has been given on Superdari by order dated 20‑12‑1989 passed by Ist. Additional Sessions Judge (South) Karachi. It is lastly contended that the co‑accused, namely, Abdul Waheed, Aslam s/o Shambay, Ali Baba, Abbas and Allah Bux have been granted bail by the trial Court by order dated 7‑11‑1989. Except that there is an allegation that the applicant absconded, there is no other material to connect him with the alleged crime and that his case would be of further enquiry.
3. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Qureshi, the learned counsel for the State, has contended that the allegation against the applicant is that on seeing the police party he came down from jeep and disappeared and absconded. Proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of Cr.P.C. were not drawn against him. He has also contended that there are infirmities in the prosecution case, which would be considered only at the trial stage, but till then the case of the applicant would be at par with the case of co‑accused, granted bail by the Trial Court.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates and perused the two orders of the trial Court and have gone through the police papers. The Challan was submitted on 26‑10‑1989, in which the applicant is shown as absconder. The order of the Trial Court, rejecting the applicant's bail application, does not mention anything regarding the proceedings, if any, taken against the applicant under sections 87 and 88 of Cr.P.C. In an earlier bail application No.273/91, the applicant herein, who was accused in Crime No.432/89 of same police station under section 307, 353, 34, P.P.C. bail was granted to him by me mainly on the ground that there was nothing to show that the applicant was absconder. The case of the applicant is at par with the case of the co‑accused, who were granted bail by the Trial Court. Even the jeep is being claimed by one Wali Muhammad, to whom it has been given on Superdari by the Trial Court. In these circumstances, the case of the applicant is of further enquiry and I am inclined to grant him bail. Haji Muhammad Adam son of Adam shall be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. one lac and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. S.A./M‑1472/K Petition accepted.