MUHAMMAD ZAHID S/O SULEMAN (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Bail Application No.436 of 2019

DATE

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF JUDGE(S)

FOR

HEARING OF BAIL APPLICATION

Date of hearing: 09.5.2019

Date of Order: 09.5.2019

Mr. Zakir Hussain Pirzada, advocate for applicant

Mr. Abdullah Rajput, Deputy Prosecutor General

ORDER

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J.

Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his release on bail from trial Court in Crime No.48/2016 registered under Sections 223/ 224/ 225/ 34 PPC at P.S. City Court, Karachi. Now the applicant Muhammad Zahid son of Suleman is seeking his release on bail through instant bail application.

Facts of the case are that on 01.7.2016 at about 1345 hours accused persons including Rashid Mir, Ameen, Zahid who were in custody and in supervision of PC Farhan, PC Rehmat Ali were present in District Court whereby the accused Rashid threw red chili powder in the eyes of PC Farhan and managed to get free his chain from the PC and ran towards the Courtyard of City Court. The accused namely Rashid Mir was apprehended whereas Zahid and Ameen managed to escape.

Learned counsel for applicant/ accused contended that the present applicant/ accused has been falsely implicated in this case; that the offences either bailable or their punishment do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC; that co-accused Rashid Mir has already been granted bail by the trial Court vide order dated 02.7.2016 and the case of the present applicant is on better footings than who has been granted bail by trial Court; that applicant/ accused was arrested on 06.12.2018, he is in jail for the last 05 months without any substantial progress in trial, therefore, according to counsel for applicant/ accused, the applicant is entitled for bail.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed this bail application and argued that in the light of Section 225, PPC, the offence has to be dealt keeping in view the offence wherein the accused was initially arrested prior to his escape in the present offence. He also further argued that rule of consistency do not apply in the present case as the accused Zahid managed to escape whereas accused Rashid could not, hence their positions are quite different.

I have given my anxious thoughts to the contentions raised at the bar and have gone through the case papers so made available before me.

It is an admitted fact that case has been challaned. This applicant/ accused is no more required for investigation. It appears from the record that all sections applied in the FIR against applicant either bailable or their punishment do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC. In such circumstances, grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. No exceptional circumstance appears in this case to withhold the bail of the applicant/ accused. Particularly, in a scenario, co-accused Rashid Mir has been granted bail by the trial Court at the time of remand vide order dated 02.7.2016. As per police paper, co-accused Rashid Mir was the main culprit, but he was granted bail as such the case of the applicant/ accused is on better footings, therefore, following the rule of consistency, this applicant/ accused is also entitled for bail. It appears from the record that applicant is behind the bars since 06.12.2018 almost 05 months have been passed but as per learned counsel for applicant, trial has still not been commenced, when trial has still not been commenced, question arises, when it would be completed.

In view of the above, the applicant/ accused has made out a case for grant of bail, I, therefore, admit the applicant/ accused on bail after his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

Needless to mention here that any observation if made in this order is tentative in nature and shall not effect the merits of the case. It is made clear that in case if during proceedings the applicant/ accused misuses the bail, then trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the applicant without making any reference to this Court but as per law.

Judge

asim/pa