KARIM BAKHSH Versus CONTROLLER EXAMINATION, ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, BAHAWALPUR

ORDER

1. The brief facts leading to this bail application are that on 5-8-1995 at 5-30 a.m. S.H.O Saudabad Police Station lodged F.I.R. No.130/1995 under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, stating therein that on the day of incident he alongwith A.S.I. Ishrat Rana and other staff members was on patrol duty in the area and when he reached opposite Ghousia Masjid, A-1, Area Malir, Colony, Karachi at 5 a.m. he saw one person whose name later on he came to know as Muhammad Yousuf son of Muhammad Younus in suspicious condition. He stopped him and took his personal search in presence of A.S.I. Ishrat Rana and P.C. Muhammad Nawaz and recovered one .30 bore T.T. Pakistan made alongwith five live cartridges from the right side of the fold of his Shalwar for which the accused /applicant could not produce any licence. Recovered T.T. alongwith cartridges was taken into possession under a Mashirnama and the accused was arrested. He was brought to the police station and the above-cited case was registered against him under section 13-D of Arms Ordinance. After usual investigation the present applicant/accused was challaned before Special Court No.I11, S.T.A., Karachi.

2. A bail application on behalf of the present applicant was moved before the Special Court but the same was rejected vide order, dated 14-9-1995.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that since the submission of challan not a single witness has been examined. According to him there is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. as not a single person from the locality has been associated to act as Mashir of recovery and arrest while on the other hand both the Mashirs are police officials, subordinate of the complainant/S.H.O. He has relied on the case of State v. Bukhtiar Ahmed 1995 SCMR 1285 and also on an unreported case of Ejaz-ul-Rehman v. The State Criminal Petition No. 140 of 1995.

4. Mr. Suleman Habibullah has no objection to the grant of bail as according to him, the complainant is also the Investigating Officer, and investigation is doubtful, and cannot be relied upon.

5. In view of the fact that even the prosecution doubts the investigation we are of the opinion that case needs further enquiry and applicant is entitled to be released on bail. As such applicant is granted bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

6. N.H.Q./M-61/L Bail granted.