ABID HUSSAIN alias AGHO Versus State

ORDER

MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.--- By means of this bail application, applicant Abid Hussain alias Agho son of Hadi Bux Jatoi, has sought pre-arrest bail in case, emanating from FIR No.12 of 2020 registered at Police Station Mahota, for offences under sections 324, 353, 401, P.P.C. after his plea for pre-arrest bail has been declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, by dismissing his bail application vide order dated.24.04.2020.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated by the police with mala fide intention and ulterior motives for the reasons best known to them. She further submits that per FIR, no overt act is assigned and mere allegation against him is of ineffective firing, therefore, application of section 324, P.P.C. is immaterial. She further adds that as far as section 401 is concerned, nothing has been brought on record whether any offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahota or after alleged commission of present offence, the other offence was committed by the accused and such cases have been reported by the concerned police with same Police Station. She therefore, submits that after grant of interim pre arrest bail, the applicant has joined trial proceedings pending before the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate IV Larkana for proceedings in terms of decision in case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Rahib and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 585). She further adds that co-accused who have already been arrested by the police have also been granted bail by the trial Court i.e. Sessions Judge Larkana, vide order dated 13.04.2020, hence according to her, rule of consistency is very much attracted in this case.

3. Learned D.P.G. after going through the record and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant does not oppose confirmation of bail.

4. Heard arguments and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, the offence with which applicant stands charged is of ineffective firing and no offence in terms of section 401, P.P.C. was committed as nothing has been brought on record by any individual that the applicant prior to this has committed the offence through which it can be imagined that he along with others was standing with intention to commit the crime. The police party though was less with automatic weapons and the applicant along with others have allegedly fired upon them, but none from the police personnel had sustained any injury or even scratch on their person. In such a situation bail becomes right and refusal will be an exception.

6. Moreover co-accused has been granted bail by the learned trial Court, hence propriety of law demands that the applicant may also be granted bail and in case he may be kept behind the bars tomorrow again he would be bailed out on the rule of parity. Reliance can be placed upon the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another (1986 SCMR 1380), hence she prays that by allowing this application interim bail granted to the applicant may be confirmed.

7. In my view the applicant has made out a good prima facie case for his admission on anticipatory bail within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently instant bail application is hereby allowed. The ad-interim pre arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant vide order dated 29.06.2020 is hereby confirmed on same terms and condition.

8. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial without getting influence from observations made hereinabove. A copy of order may be transmitted to learned trial Court for compliance.

JK/A-90/Sindh Bail confirmed.