1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.---This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant/accused Muhammad Hashim Sehto who has been arrested on 8-8-2008 for his involvement in Crime Case No,70 of 2008 registered at Police Station Tando Bago District Badin and the Trial Court being Ist Additional Sessions Judge Badin rejected the bail application on the ground that his name has been mentioned in the A F.I.R. With specific role of absconding away of high profile accused Kamran Tasori from the clutches of police, hence his bail application was rejected on 18-9-2008.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that on 18-6-2008 while the custody of Kamran Khan Tasori was being taken for remand to the court, of Civil Court Badin, accused Kamran Khan Tasori was driven away by applicant/accused Muhammad Hashim Sehto when at a distance from Tando Bago Badin road near Dhand one Landcruiser intercepted them and on the pointation of firearm forcibly took away the accused Kamran Khan Tasori from the custody of police and the applicant/accused Muhammad Hashim Sehto ASI also went with the culprits hence a case under sections 395, 353, 223, 224, 225, 225-A, 119, 120-B, P.P.C. Read with section 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the accused persons.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused has argued that co-accused Kamran Khan Tasori has, been granted bail by learned Trial Court on the ground that the police had not produced the accused Kamran Khan Tasori after his arrest on 16-6-2008 and there was no evidence of the arrest of the accused or being in police custody, therefore, in absence of remand order the custody was not legal from 16-6-2008 to 18-6-2008 and therefore bail was allowed. Learned counsel on the principle of consistency has prayed for bail to present applicant/accused and further that all the offences that would allegedly apply to the allegation against the accused are bailable. The accused is police official and has been victimized by his superiors for no his fault on his part.
4. Placing reliance upon the cases Muhammad Ramzan and others v. State (2006 PCr.LJ 408 Kar.), Haji Ismail and another v. State (2006 MLD 1856 Kar.), 2006 YLR 3022 (Kar.) and 2008 PCr.LJ 1546, PLD 2004 (Lah.) 549.
5. ' Learned State Counsel has not opposed the bail application.
6. ' Heard arguments. In this case the alleged role shown against the applicant/ accused in view of the findings as given in 2006 PCr.LJ 408 where it was held "sufficient evidence though was not available with prosecution to show that accused had intentionally allowed or aided said prisoner to escape, but even offence of intentionally allowing escape fell under S.221, P.P.C., which was also bailable---" In 2006 MLD 4856 "No details had been provided against accused persons about the manner they had facilitated the said two persons in escaping from the police custody---In absence of any specific allegation----", bail was granted.
7. In the present case it has not been specified as to how the applicant/accused had facilitated the escape of co-accused who was granted bail by the Trial Court after concluding that the custody was proper hence when no proper custody shown with the police allegations facilitating such escape would require further inquiry. Even otherwise consider that no person received any injury from either side and co-accused Kamran Khan Tasori was granted bail by learned Ti Court, under such circumstances in opinion the present applicant/accused also entitled to the concession of bail which is accordingly granted to him. 1 applicant/accused be released upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 ( and PR bond in the like amount to satisfaction of Trial Court.