1. ' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.--- Heard Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro Advocate for applicants and Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto learned State counsel.
2. ' The allegations against the applicants who are police constables is that on 7th May, 2006 at 1630 hours, some accused persons in police custody in different cases escaped away due to deliberate negligence in performing official duties by the applicants.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned Advocate for the applicants argued that ingredients to attract sections 222 and 225-A of P.P.C. Are missing and applicants are entitled for the grant of bail.
4. In support of his contentions, he relied on the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 408.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State Counsel opposed the application and argued that accused in custody of applicants were escaped due to negligence of applicants in discharging their duties.
6. I have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. And from the perusal of F.I.R. It appears that at 1540 hours, applicant No,2, Ashique Ali opened the lock-up to serve the meal to the accused persons in lockup and the accused persons by pushing succeeded to escape away from the police custody.
7. From the perusal of F.I.R. It appears that ingredients of sections 222 and 225-A, P.P.C. Are missing. In the case of Muhammad Ramzan (supra) it was held:-- "According to police, the prisoner had escaped due to the negligence of the applicants. The trial Court, while rejecting the bail application, has also observed that the prisoner had escaped due to the gross negligence of the applicants. Though, at present sufficient evidence is not available with the prosecution to show that the applicants had intentionally allowed or aided the prisoner to escape, the offence of intentionally allowing escape, falling under section 221, P.P.C., is also bailable.
8. The offences under sections 221, 222 and 223, P.P.C., are also bailable. The trial Court has rejected the bail application only on the ground that the police had subsequently applied section 225(iii), P.P.C. This section has no application so for the applicants are concerned. It applies to the cases of intentionally offering resistance or obstruction in apprehending offenders or rescuing them from custody. None of the applicants is alleged to have offered any resistance in apprehending any offender or rescued or attempted to rescue any prisoner. The. Court is not bound by the ipsi dixit of police particularly in the matters of the application of proper section. It, being more expert in the field of law, has to apply its own mind and find out the proper provision of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of a case."
9. ' Since very ingredients of sections 222 and 225-A are missing, and it is yet to establish whether applicants intentionally help in rescuing accused persons from custody or not. The applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with P.R. Bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
10. ' The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and while deciding the case, learned trial Court should not be influenced by the same.