1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this bail application applicant seeks post arrest bail in Crime No,6/2012 for offence under sections 4/5 Explosive Act registered at Police Station CID, Sindh.
2. ' The allegation against applicant as per F.I.R. Are that during interrogation he disclosed that he has hidden two rocket Golay, in bushes at Suparco Road and led police party towards there and on his pointation recovery was effected.
3. ' Counsel for applicant states that applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecution. He submits that no private witnesses are associated which is clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Applicant is behind the bars from last eight months as such he is no more required for further investigation. He submits that alleged offence falls within the ambit of section 13-A Arms Ordinance but not under Explosive Act 1908. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. He placed reliance on the case-law reported as Bismillah Khan v. The. State (2004 M LD 224), Zain-ul-Abidin v. The State (2010 M LD 173), Shama Khel and 2 others v. Yousuf Ali Khan and another (2008 YLR 1888), Gul Hassan alias Nadeem v. The State (2004 YLR 1662) and Muhammad Arif Baig v. The State (2008 M LD 185).
4. ' Learned A.P.G. Opposed the grant of bail. He submits that recovery of Two Rocket Golay on the pointation of applicant/accused is sufficient to connect him with the commission of offence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Admittedly applicant/accused led police party and on his pointation recovery of two Rocket Golay, is effected.
6. No enmity is shown by the applicant/accused that prosecution has falsely implicated him in this case and managed Two Rocket Golay against the applicant/accused. In these type of cases no independent witnesses are ready to witness the incident, therefore, police witnesses are as good witnesses as independent witnesses. In cases referred above the facts and circumstances were different to that of case in hand, therefore the, same are not applicable.
7. ' The result of above discussion is that counsel for, applicant/accused has not been able to make out a case for bail, therefore, this bail application is dismissed. However learned trial Court is directed to frame the charge in case and at least two witnesses i,e, complainant and mashir of recovery be examined within the period of three months.