1. ' SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERY, J.--- The applicants/ accused are facing trial for Sessions Case No,9 of 2005 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze pertaining to Crime No,205 of 2004 for offences punishable under sections 221, 222, 223, 128 and 225(iii), P.P.C.
2. Read with Article 155(c)(d) of Police Order, 2002. The applicants/accused filed separate application in the trial Court seeking the bail in the above mentioned crime but their bail applications were dismissed by a common order dated 7-2-2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze. The applicants/ accused being aggrieved with the said order have preferred the bail application before this Court for seeking bail on the similar grounds.
3. ' The brief facts as enumerated in the F.I.R. Which are reproduced hereinbelow in extenso.
4. "On behalf of State complaint is that today I along with staff each PC-1736 Muhammad Moosa Solangi, PC-1240 Manzoor Ali Bhatti, in official uniform with ammunitions had gone in Government Vehicle No,SP-5765 along with driver PC-1295 Perano Khan, vide Entry No,4/0815/16-12-2004 of Police Station, Naushahro Feroze to arrest the absconders and proclaimed offenders/accused within our jurisdiction. When at about 1000 hours we received information through wireless, that the firing is going on in the premises of the Sessions Court, Naushahro Feroze. On receiving such information, I along with above staff reached at Sessions Court, Naushahro Feroze where A.S.-I.
5. Ghulam Sarwar Lashari, Incharge Prisoners Party met with us, who disclosed that PC Khuda Bakhsh Rind, who was with us in duty of prisoners party who due to his previous enmity had murdered the prisoner Ghulam Sarwar alias Sarwar Rind and prisoner Ali Gohar Nangore with his Government SMG rifle and has caused injuries to prisoner Shah Nawaz alias Shanoo Khokhar, on which the prisoners have started fighting and due to riot and scuffle between the U.T.Ps., ten prisoners have escaped. P.C. Mir Khan Lund also disclosed us that prisoner Ghulam Rasool alias Nachoo Machhi and others have snatched away Government SMG Rifle No,16193317 and one Magazine and 30 bullets from him and they had fired upon police and had run away. During firing P.C. Manzoor Ali Chohan sustained injuries and ten prisoners got them escaped. Then, we immediately along with other police staff controlled upon the other prisoners and arrested them and at about 1400 hours, we secured Government SMG rifle with magazine from the possession of prisoner Ghulam Rasool alias Nachoo Machhi. Then we made arrangement to keep the prisoners under custody and we also came to know that on the duty of prisoner party, A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar Lashari, Incharge Prisoners Party, H.C.51 Manzoor Ali Panhwar, H.C.21 Ghulam Shabeer Rind, H.C.238 Ali Murad Khushk.P.C.1204 Manzoor Ali Chohan, P.C.1403 Pathan Khan Dahraj, P.C.1922 Baaz Khan Bhatti were not carrying the Government weapons, during their official duty and have committed the breach of law and other staff have also committed negligence and shown cowardness in their duty and have given the chance in running away the ten prisoners. We gave such information to higher officials and came in knowledge of Crime No,203 of 2004 under sections 302, 324 and 7 A.T.A. And Crime No,204 of 2004 under sections 324, 353, 224, 225, 337-A(i), 225-B, 186, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. And 17(3),'E.H.O. Lodged at Police Station Naushahro Feroze. The higher officials ordered that during the duty whosoever police staff has committed negligence and cowardness in performing his duty the lawful action be taken against them. So on behalf of State. I am complainant and complaining that A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar Lashari, Incharge Prisoners Party, H.C.51 Ali Murad Khushk, P.C.1402 Hakimuddin, (2) P.C.1204 Manzoor Ali Chohan, (3) C-1403 Pathan Khan Dahraj, (4) C-244 Imtiaz Ali Solangi, (5) C-183 Nazeer Ahmed Channa, (6) C-2387 Noor Muhammad Abbasi, (7) C-1922 Baz Khan Bhatti, (8)' C-1663 Ali Akber Solangi, (9) C-2270 Wazeer Ali Mastoi, (10)'C-1185 Mushtaque Ali Solangi, (11) C-1918 Shafique Ahmed, (12) C-831 Aijaz Ali, (13) C-2463 Meeral Khan Lund, (14) C-2031 Allanditto, (15) C-1232 Muhammad Iqbal Panhwar, (16) C-1357 Muharram Ali Mashori, (17) C-2316 Muhammad Chijan Rajper, who have shown negligence during their duty and the prisoners who have come from Sukkur Central Prison-I in different cases in different. Courts at Naushahro Feroze have got their escape, ten in number from their custody and have taken no care during their duty and also have robbed Government SMG and the above A.S.-I., H.C. And P.Cs. Have not taken the Government ammunitions with them and as such have committed the violation of law. I am the complainant investigation be done."
6. ' Mr. Imdad Ali Awan learned counsel for the applicants except applicant No,12 (Imtiaz. Ali Solangi) has raised the following grounds for the grant of bail. (1) Mr.. Awan submits that are three versions of the same incident which have been committed on 16-12-2004 but three F.I.Rs, were lodged being Crime Nos.203, 204 and 205 of 2005 at Police Station Naushahro Feroze, as per three F.I.Rs, regarding the incident itself create doubt in the prosecution version. In the F.I.R. No,203, the applicant/accused A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar lodged the F.IR.. On 16-12-2004 at 1430 hours as he was performing the duties as Kaidi party (Incharge of the U.T.Ps.). (2) The applicant/accused Ghulam Sarwar and A.S.-I. Qadir Baldish, A.S.-I. Muhammad Qassim, H.C. Abdul Razzak, H.C. Manzoor Ali, H.C.
7. Ghulam Shabbir, H.C. Ali Murad was amongst the party to carry the 80 U.T.Ps. From C.P.-I, Sukkur in three prison vans proceeded to District Naushahro Feroze for producing the U.T.Ps. Before different Courts. (3) There is delay in lodging of.The F.I.R. Although the complainant S.I.P./S.H.O. Mushtaque Ali Almani received the wireless message at 10-00 a.m. But the F.I.R. Was lodged regarding the same transaction as being Crime No,203 of 2004 at 1730 hours, as per F.I.R. There is delay about more than 7 hours, although the police station was hardly two furlongs away from the place of incident.
(4) There is deliberate delay on the part of prosecution to lodge the F.I.R. But due to deliberation and consultation and after seeking instructions from the high ups, the complainant was directed to lodge the F.I.R. On behalf of the State, in Crime No,205 of 2004 the applicant Ghulam Sarwar is complainant in F.I.R. No,203 of 2004 which was lodged immediately in respect of the alleged crime- and accused Khuda Bux was tried by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Sukkur in Special Case No,96 of 2004. The applicant/accused being complainant of said F.I.R. Was examined as a witness and his version was believed by the trial Court. The applicant/accused Khuda Bux Rind was convicted by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II vide judgment, dated 15-3-2005 by awarding death penalty for two times and also directed to pay Rs,1,75,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of each deceased in case of default in payment of compensation, he shall suffer R.I. For 6 months more. The said Court also convicted accused Khuda Bux for offence under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced him to suffer R.I. For 10 years and to pay compensation of Rs,10,000, the trial Court also awarded punishment under section 337-F,' P.P.C. For causing firearm injuries to P.W./U.T.P. Shah Nawaz alias Shanoo and awarded punishment for 3 years as Tazir and Rs,5,000 as Daman to the injured/U.T.P. Shah Nawaz alias Shanoo. The trial Court also convicted accused Khuda Bux for offence punishable under section 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Court, 1997 and awarded death penalty for 2 times. The said judgment has been challenged by the applicant/accused Khuda Bux in this Court which is pending for decision. (4) The applicant/accused Meeral Khan Lund is also complainant in F.I.R. No,204 of 2004 and the applicants/accused are prosecution witnesses as per charge-sheet No,158 (30-12-2004). The applicant/accused have been inducted as accused in this case malafidely with ulterior motives to involve them falsely. (5) As per order of the District Police Officer, Naushahro Feroze vide Order No,OB/-4943 of 2004, dated 11-12-2004 whereby 46 police officials of District Naushahro Feroze were deployed to escort/produce the U.T.Ps. In District Courts of Naushahro Feroze from C.P.-I Sukkur and Hyderabad for the period of three months., ' As per the above mentioned list the names of accused H.C. Manzoor Ali, P.C. Pathan Khan, P.C.
8. Hakimuddin, P.C. Meeral Khan, P.C. Allandino, P.C. Aijaz Ali were not mentioned in the list but they have been made as accused in this F.I.R. Without any justification as the prosecution intended to save the responsible police officials, therefore, this ground also requires further inquiry.
9. ' According to the charge-sheet the accused persons namely Muharram Ali Mastoi, (2)
10. Muhammad Chhillan, (3) Muhammad Iqbal, (4) Manzoor Ali were let off during the course of investigation, therefore, their names were shown in Column No,2.
11. ' According to the prosecution there is no evidence and role of each accused for committing the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Accused Manzoor Ali Chohan was let off during investigation although he was injured and he scuffled during the incident whereas accused Ghulam Shabbir Rind also sustained injuries but he was not let off as he performed his official duty and sustained injuries in spite of that he was indicted as accused in the charge-sheet.
12. ' The prosecution has not acted fairly in accordance with law while placing the names of four accused persons as mentioned above although their names appear in the F.I.R. Hence the case requires further inquiry, as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And they are entitled for the concession of bail.
13. ' The F.I.R. No,205 of 2004 was lodged by the S.I.P./S.H.O. ;Mushtaque Ali Almani but his version is heresay as he is not eyewitness of the incident as he reached at the place of incident after commission of the incident and might inquired from A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar Lashari the applicant No,l. The name of A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar Lashari does not transpire in the list of police officials who were deployed to escort the U.T.Ps. Although he has lodged the F.I.R. Being Crime No,203 of 2004.
14. The F.I.R. No,205 of 2004 was lodged at about 1730 hours under the directives of the high-ups which contradicts the version of the Crime No,203 of 2005.
15. ' The statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded on 24-12-2004 after the delay of 8 days and no plausible explanation has been made regarding the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Which itself creates doubt in the prosecution case. The offence under section 221, P.P.C. Is punishable for 7 years, section 222, P.P.C. Is punishable not exceeding 3 years whereas section 223, P.P.C. Is punishable for 2 years. In Crime No,203 of 2004 H.C. Manzoor Ali, Mushtaque Ali Solangi, P.C.
16. Nazir Ahmed Channa, P.C. Noor Ahmed Abbasi, P.C. Hakimuddin Kalhoro, P.C. Imtiaz Ali Solangi are the prosecution witnesses and their evidence was recorded by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Sukkur and believed the version and ultimately convicted and punished accused Khuda Bux for an offence under sections 302, 324, P.P.C. Read with section 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
17. The version of complainant, A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar being complainant in Crime No,203 of 2004 along with other witnesses have been believed by the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-II and their induction as an accused in this crime is mala fide and with ulterior motives.
18. ' Mr. Imdad Ali Awan learned counsel for the, applicants/accused except applicant/accused Imtiaz Ali in support of his propositions has relied upon the case of Syed Amanullah v. The State and others PLD 1996 SC 241; Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ulHaque and 3 others 1996 SCM R 1845; Muhammad Saleem v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1894 and case of Manzoor Hussain v. The State 2004 YLR 3271.
19. ' Mr. Abdul Latif Channa, learned counsel for the applicant/ accused Imtiaz Ali Solangi submits that the complainant S.I.P./S.H.O. Mushtaque Ahmed Almani is not the eye-witness of the incident and he has recorded the F.I.R. On hearsay evidence. There is no justification in the prosecution case that at what time he reached at the place of incident and verified the facts but according to F.I.R. He lodged the F.I.R. At about 1730 hours whereas he received wireless message at 10-00 a.m. The complainant left the police station along with his police staff vide entry No,4 of at 815 hours on 16- 12-2004 to arrest the absconders and proclaimed offenders/accused within the jurisdiction but he has not disclosed the crime number nor he has shown the fact that he 'received N.B.Ws. For such proclaimed offender from any Court of law. The case was investigated by the investigation branch and the concerned S.H.O. Has no occasion to investigate the case unless authorized by the superior officers. There is no entry at the police station that the concerned S.H.O. Reached at the place of Vardat regarding commission of the offence which itself is ground for grant of bail as the F.I.R. Was lodged malafidely. The two F.I.Rs, being Crime Nos.203 and 204 of 2004 were recorded by the police party who was head of U.T.Ps. But this F.I.R. Was lodged in order to save the skin of other police officials and implicated the present applicants/accused along with others without any justification.
20. There is no evidence and the applicants and other co-accused failed to perform their duties at the time of incident, whereas the two F.I.Rs, were lodged by complainant Ghulam Sarwar and Miral Khan. Mr. Channa further submits that the F.I.R. Of this Crime No,205 of 2004 was registered on the same date and the Mashirnama of Vardat was prepared on the next day. Mr. Channa learned counsel for the applicant/accused Imtiaz Ali Solangi has relied upon the case of Tarique Bashir v.
21. The State PLD 1995 SC 34.
22. ' Conversely Mr. Zubair Ahmed Rajput, learned Advocate for the State has vehemently opposed this application and submits that the applicants/accused Ghulam Sarwar, Ali Murad Khushk, Manzoor Ahmed Panwhar, Ghulam Shabbir Rind, Pathan Khan Dahraj and Baaz Khan Bhatti refused to accept the arms and ammunitions at Police Lines to carry the U.T.Ps. And report was made to the D.P.O. Naushahro Ferozc by the concerned Line Officer on the same date in Crime No,204. SMG was recovered from one Ghulam Rasool Machhi on the same date at about 1400 hours by S.I.P./S.H.O.
23. Mushtaque Ahmed Alamani. As per record 10 persons were involved in heinous offences as murder, dacoity and drug trafficking and due to connivance of the applicants/accused they have escaped away. At the time of incident two U.T.Ps. Were killed and some sustained injuries. The applicants/accused were detailed in duty and they failed to maintain the security for the prisoners while producing them in the Court of law. The applicants/accused are responsible for escaping of the prisoners and they are not entitled for the concession of bail.
24. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, examined the material placed on record and the judgment in Special Case No,96 of 2004 passed by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Sukkur against Khuda Bux Rind in Crime No,203 of 2004 and the case-law cited at Bar by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused. Admittedly in Crime No,204 of 2004 lodged on 16-12-2004 complainant Miral Khan, A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar, H.C. Manzoor Ali, H.C. Ali Murad, C. Pathan Khan, C.
25. Mushtaque Ahmed, C. Imtiaz Ali Solangi, C. Waz. Ir Ali Mastoi, C. Noor Ahmed Kalhoro, C. Nazir Ahmed, C. Hakimuddin, C. Ali Akber and C. Aijaz Ali, C. Shafique Ahmed Channa, Allandino Khokhar, C. Baaz Khan Bhatti, H.C. Ghulam Shabbir Rind are prosecution witnesses and Investigation' Officer was believed their evidence and cited them as witness in the above mentioned crime, whereas in Crime No,205 of 2004, the said prosecution witnesses have been cited as accused for commission of the incident as disclosed in the F.I.R. Admittedly there are 3 F.I.Rs, in 2 F.I.Rs, the narration of the incident is common but in 3rd F.I.R. Different version has been disclosed for the same crime at the same police station. Complainant Mushtaque Ahmed S.I.P./S.H.O. Is not the eye-witness of the incident but he reached at the incident after hearing the fire-shot reports and he was informed on wireless by superior officers to reach at the place of incident. In Crime No,205 of 2004 S.H.O.
26. Reached at the place of incident along with his team but statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded on 24-12-2004 after the delay of 8 days, although all the prosecution witnesses belong to police force. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the applicant/accused filed letter No,4943 dated 11-12-2004 signed by the D.P.O., Naushahro Feroze for deputing the police officials, Head Constables and Constables of the District to perform the duties for production of the U.T.Ps. From Central Prison, Sukkur and Hyderabad in different Courts and Naushahro Feroze for three months. In all 46 officials were deployed to perform such duties. The learned State Counsel has not disputed the letter mentioned above and submitted that some other police officials were also deployed to perform escort duties from Naushahro Feroze and such intimation was sent by a letter dated 2-8-2004, 7-8-2004. It is surprising to note that P.C. Ghulam Sarwar, Ali Murad Khushk, Manzoor Ahmed Panwhar, Ghulam Shabbir Rind, Pathan Khan Dahraj and Baaz Khan Bhatti had refused the arms and ammunitions on the day of incident in spite of that they were deployed to carry the U.T.Ps. Instead of throwing them from their duties and other police officials to carry. This negligent act of the Line Officer or other police officials present on their duties to depute them instead who refused to accept the arms and ammunitions. Eleven U.T.Ps. Were arrested by the Investigating Officer but no case was registered against them for escaping from the lawful custody in Crime No,204 of 2004. Six other U.T.Ps. Were also arrested on different dates but no case was registered against them. In fact as per Crime No,203 of 2004 P.C. Khuda Bux Rind was amongst the police officials having SMG with the prisoners party. On the day of incident when the U.T.Ps. And the police officials escorting the U.T.Ps. Reached at the common gate of District Court, Naushahro Feroze they alighted the prisoners from the Van and U.T.Ps. Entered in the Court premises whereby P.C. Khuda Bux Rind had fired from his SMG rifle upon U.T.P. Ghulam Sarwar Rind and Ali Gohar Nagore, both the U.T.Ps. Were handcuffed with one chain. The fire-shots hit the U.T.P. Ghulam Sarwar Rind and Ali Gohar Nagore and Shah Nawaz alias Shanoo. The police party apprehended accused Khuda Bux within the Court premises along with SMG rifle, U.T.P. Ghulam Sarwar died at the spot due to fire-arm injuries whereas U.T.P. Ali Gohar Nagore and Shah Nawaz alias Shanoo were lying injured at the place of incident they were referred to Civil Hospital, Naushahro Feroze for their treatment, but injured Ali Gohar Nagore had died due to fire-arm injuries. It has come on record in Special Case No,96 of 2004 that P.C. Khuda Bux has confessed before the complainant party that there was old enmity and P.C. Khuda Bux got revenge by committing the murder of U.T.P. Ghulam Sarwar and Ali Gohar Nagore, there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. And no plausible explanation has been furnished although the complainant S.I.P./S.H.O. Mushtaque Ahmed received wireless message at 10-00 a.m. And there is no plausible explanation as to why- the statement of the prosecution witnesses in that crime were recorded on 24-12-2004, after 8 days. During the course of investigation four police officials were let off and their names were mentioned in column No,2 of the charge-sheet and on the basis of same evidence against them, applicant Ghulam Shabbir also sustained injuries at the time of incident but he has been charge-sheeted in this crime. The S.I.P./S.H.O. While leaving the police station on the day of incident has not disclosed the crime number of any other case for the purpose of arrest of proclaimed offenders and it is not clear from the record that in which village he reached for the purpose of arrest of nominated accused or absconding accused. Case of Syed Amanullah v. The State it has been held by the Honourable apex Court and has observed as under:-- ' "So whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail. In such situation, it would be better to keep an accused person on bail than in the jail, during the trial.
27. Freedom of an individual is a precious right. Personal liberty granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction should not be snatched away from accused unless it becomes necessary to deprive him of his liberty under the law. Where story of prosecution does not appear to be probable, bail may be granted so that further inquiry may be made into guilt of the accused."
28. ' In similar circumstances the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Shoaib Mehmood v. Iftikharul Haque and 3 others has observed as:-- ' "In case of counter-version arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R. And the other given by the opposite party it is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In such cases normally, bail is granted on the ground of further inquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the trial Court which is final conclusion in this regard. In cases of counter-version, normally, plea of private defence is taken giving rise to question as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed against."
29. ' In another case of Muhammad Saleem v. The State, it has been held as under:-- "In view of the above circumstances there are three versions put forth by the prosecution with respect to its case, and thus, it is a case of further inquiry that as to what extends the petitioner is responsible for murder of Yakoob deceased."
30. ' There is another reported authority in case of Manzoor Hussain v. The State 2004 YLR 3271 and it has been held that if there are two versions of the same incident by lodging two separate F.I.Rs, showing different accused persons and it was observed that it is yet to be determined at the time of trial that as to which of the F.I.R. Was to be believed.
31. ' Admittedly in Crime No,203 of 2004 registered at Police Station Naushahro Feroze at the complaint of A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar (applicant No,1 the trial Court has believed the prosecution version and awarded conviction and sentenced accused Khuda Bux. A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar, H.C. Manzoor Ali, P.C. Mushtaque Ali, P.C. Nazir Ahmed, P.C. Noor Ahmed, P.C. Ali Akber, P.C. Baaz Khan, P.C. Pathan Khan and P.C. Hakimuddin and P.C. Irntiaz Ali Solangi were witnesses in the above mentioned crime, therefore, their evidence was recorded, whereas in Crime No,204 of 2004 the applicants/accused are prosecution witnesses. The learned State Counsel during the arguments conceded the factual position in respect of the induction of applicants/accused as witnesses in Crime No,204 of 2004 as well as in Crime No,203 of 2004, A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar and other police officials were cited as witnesses. As per F.I.R. 'No,205 of 2004 S.I.P./S.H.O. Reached at the place of incident and ascertained the facts from the police party who were escorting the U.T.Ps. And particularly from A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar. The complainant S.I.P./S.H.O. Mushtaque Ali he is not the eye-witness of the incident but he reached at the place of incident after sometime and as per instructions of the high-ups registered the F.I.R. It was conceded by the learned State Counsel that during the course of investigation the statement of Line Officer was not recorded in respect of the refusal of the arms and ammunitions by applicant/accused Ghulam Sarwar, Ali Murad, Manzoor Ali, Ghulam Shabir Rind, Pathan Khan, Baaz Khan Bhatti, in spite of refusal of none accepting of the arms and ammunitions the said police constables were deployed to carry the U.T.Ps. As per F.I.Rs, Nos.203 and 204 of 2004 the police officials deployed for carrying the U.T.Ps. Have performed their duties and lodged necessary F.I.Rs, and the charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of law and the Crime No,203 of 2004 has ended in conviction by believing the prosecution evidence. There is another precedent in case of Tarique Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34. It will be advantageous to reproduce the observations of the Honourable apex Court as under:-- ' "It is crystal clear that in bailable offences the grant of bail is a right and not favor, whereas in non- bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but concession grace. Section- 497, Cr.P.C., divided non-bailable offences into two categories i,e, (1) offences punishable with death, imprisonment of life or imprisonment for ten years; and (ii) offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years. The principle to be deduced from this provision of law is that in non-bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years) the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. So the bail will be declined only in extraordinary and exceptional cases, for example:--
(a) Where there is likelihood of abscondence of the accused.
(b) Where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence.
(c) Where there is danger of the offence being repeated if the accused is released on bail; and
(d) Where the accused is a previous convict.
32. ' It is further observed in the above mentioned authority that grant of bail in bailable offences is right of accused whereas in non-bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but concession/grace. The applicants/accused are working as police officials being A.S.-I. H.C. And P.C.
33. And there is no likelihood of their abscondence nor there is any apprehension to tamper of the prosecution evidence as the police officials are the complainant and prosecution witnesses.
34. ' In view of the foregoing reasons and circumstances and the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicants/ accused I am of the view that the applicants/accused have made out the case for grant of bail. The charge has already been submitted in the Court of law, one case Crime No,203 of 2004 has been ended in conviction and the two cases being Crimes Nos.204 and 205 of 2004 are pending in the Court of law and it is expected that the said cases will be tried as early as possible. At present I grant bail to the applicants/accused in the sum of Rs,2, 00,000 (Two hundred thousand only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
35. ' The observations made by this Court in this order will not prejudice the case of either party at the trial.