1. ' GHULAM DASTAGIR SHAHANI, J.--- Bail application is submitted on behalf of applicant/accused namely Ashfaq Kareem alias Khalil-ur-Rehman son of Abdul Rehman in Crime No 168 of 2008 Police Station Nazimabad, Karachi Central under sections 353/324/34, P. P. C .
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24-5-2008 A.S.-I. Abdul Rehman lodged F.I.R.
3. Alleging that during patrolling duty at 1900 hours when they reached near S.M. Public School Nazimabad, Karachi they saw three persons on motorcycle being suspicious, he signaled them to stop but they did not stop, police party chased them, but culprits started firing upon them with intention to kill them. In defence police party also fired and succeeded to arrest two culprits namely Bilal son of Muhammad Saleem Ahmed and Ashfaq Kareem present applicant/ accused.
4. However, they disclosed the name of absconder as Farhan. On personal search police party recovered .32 bore pistol along with 4 live bullets from the applicant/accused, whereas from co- accused recovered .30 bore pistol No,1452 loaded with two live bullets, 4 mobile phones and cash worth Rs,80.
5. ' Bail application was submitted before trial Court, but that was rejected vide order, dated 30-6- 2008 by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central, hence present application.
6. ' Heard Mr. Jamil Ahmed Javed learned counsel for the applicant who states that applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police with mala fide intention and allegation against applicant/accused is only of ineffective firing, as such applicant/accused is entitled for concession of bail. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the case of Muhammad v. The State 1998 SCM R 454, Abdul Qadir v. The State 2006 YLR 3022, Lal Bux v. The State 2008 YLR 926 and case of Rab Nawaz v. The State 1990 SCM R 1085 respectively.
7. ' On the other hand Mr. Navid Ali learned State Counsel opposed the grant of bail, on the ground that applicant/accused was arrested on the spot and crime weapon recovered from him and he has fired upon the police party.
8. ' Heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused, as well as to the learned State Counsel and with their assistance perused the material available on record.
9. As per record, applicant/accused was arrested at the spot with .32 bore pistol along with 4 live bullets. Allegedly applicant/accused fired upon the police party, but no one received injury even fire not hit to the police mobile, as such it is yet to be determined, whether the applicant/accused has fired upon the police party or not. So far the law relied by the learned counsel is concerned, is so relevant mostly having similar facts in which ineffective firing was made, no injury was attributed to anyone during the occurrence and case against the applicant/accused was found for further inquiry. Particularly case of Muhammad v. The State 1998 SCM R 454 and Abdul Qadir v.
10. The State 2006 YLR 3022 as applicant/accused was arrested at the spot and incriminating material was recovered from his possession, even then concession of bail was extended on the ground that, since no injury caused to the police party, possibility of awarding lesser punishment to accused could not be overruled. No reasonable grounds were to believe that applicant/accused committed a non-bailable offence. However, tentative assessment is to be made and no deeper appreciation is required at bail stage. Applicant/accused made out a case for grant of bail therefore, he was admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
11. ' These are the reasons of short order, dated 3-9-2008. However, aforesaid observations are tentative in nature and would not affect the trial of the case.