ANWAR ALI Versus State

ORDER

1. FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.--- This order will dispose of instant bail application, moved on behalf of applicant above named. The applicant is involved in a criminal case registered at Police Station Civil Line, Jacobabad vide Crime No.10 of 2014 under section 409, P.P.C.

2. The allegation against the present applicant is that he is a police constable and he has misappropriated SMG along with 300 bullets. Later on he was compulsorily retired and case was registered in respect of mis-appropriation by Anti-corruption authorities against the applicant which is pending before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Larkana.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR is delayed by four years and after an appeal before I.G.P Sindh he was reinstated in service as major penalty was converted into minor penalty and he has deposited the cost of weapon in the treasury. According to learned counsel, as a routine practice, he handed over the weapon to some other police constable, which was snatched from him during a law and order situation. He submits that the only mistake committed by him is that he did not place entry in record at the time of handing over the weapon. According to him the trial is about to complete as only I.O. remains to be examined.

4. Learned A.P.G while opposing the instant bail application submits that the documentary evidence is against the applicant. He was removed from service and he remained absent for 350 days. It is the case of mis-appropriation of ammunition therefore, he is not entitled for any concession. However, he frankly admits that after appeal he has been reinstated in service which is not transpired from the police file, but available with the instant application.

5. In the instant case the defence plea is that the weapon was actually handed over by the applicant to some other P.C. and thereafter it was found missing. If such was situation then only fault of the applicant is that he has not made proper entry in the record. The evidence against the applicant is in the sort of documentary evidence and after investigation not only case has been filed before the Special Court but it is being proceeded and as per contention of the counsel for the applicant only I.O. remains to be examined. The applicant has been reinstated as per the contention of the learned counsel as well as annexure 'E' page No.25. I am of the view that when case against the applicant rests upon the documentary evidence and if he is reinstated in service after converting the major penalty into minor penalty, case of bail before arrest is made out. Hence ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 08.4.2016 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

6. WA/A-57/Sindh Bail confirmed.