/ORDER ' MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, J.---By this common order, I intend to dispose of the above two bail applications related to the same incident.
2. The facts of the case, arising out from F.I.R. No, 24 of 2012 lodged with Police Station, Barkhan under sections 408, 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), ACT-II of 1947 on 27th November, 2012 on the report of Khan Muhammad, ASI are that despite posting of Nida Ullah, ASI as Kot In charge of Police Line, Barkhan on 4th July, 2012, the applicant Shah Muhammad lingered on the handing over of the charge to him. The applicant Shah Muhammad did not return to his duty after 11th July, 2012 and he was marked absent from 12th July, 2012 and the high officials were informed about the wilful absence. After due notice, he was suspended. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. That the DSP Muhammad Asif in compliance of directives of high officials after breaking the lock of Kot Room prepared a report, wherein following Arms and Ammunition was found missing:-- S. No.Kind of arms Body No.S. No.Kind of arms Body No.
(1) Rifle G-3 J193502 Rifle G-3 J19922 3 Rifle G-3 J199264 Rifle G-3 J19923 5 Rifle G-3 J19925(1) SMG 5210150 2 SMG 52044913 SMG 521058 4 SMG 52084785 SMG 5212296 6 SMG 52118517 SMG 5211750 8 SMG 52109459 SMG 5209966 10 SMG 521074511 SMG 5209486 12 SMG 520921413 SMG 5209701 14 SMG 520873615 SMG 5211723 16 SMG 520962617 SMG 5211145 18 SMG 520970919 SMG 5210860 20 SMG 521097221 SMG 5207509 22 SMG 520988023 SMG 5209184 24 SMG 521242125 SMG 5212188 26 SMG 520904427 SMG 5205870
(1) Rounds SMG 1699 2 Magazines SMG 54 3 Badolier SMG 11 4 Rounds G-3 61 5 Magazines G-3 03 6 Bandolier G-3 riffle02 7 Rounds LMG/Bren Gun613 8 Charger LMG 129
3. Initially, the F.I.R. Was registered against the applicant Shah Muhammad 8/HC and after inquiry, the applicant Khan Muhammad (Criminal Bail Application No,583 of 2013) was also arrested for committing misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.
4. The applicants' bail application was declined by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Balochistan, Quetta on 1st November, 2013 and 18th November, 2013.
5. ,The learned counsel for the applicant Shah Muhammad mainly contended that the applicant being Kot Incharge has nothing to do with the distribution and movement of arms; that the applicant remained absent since 12th July, 2012 and in his absence, the lock was broken and there exists no reasonable ground to connect the applicant in the commission of offence; that the matter related to entrustment and responsibility of applicant is yet to be determined, therefore, it is fit case of further inquiry; that the trial Court while rejecting the bail application determined the case on merit, which is not permissible under the law; that the offences do not fall in prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant Khan Muhammad sought bail on the ground that the contents of F.I.R. Itself reflect the bona fide intention on the part of applicant; that the applicant being line officer had informed the higher officials about the wilful absence of Kot In charge and thereafter committee was assigned to break the lock of Kot Room. Had the key of the Kot Room was supposed to be with the applicant; the lock would have not been broken; that tenable material on record indicates the innocence of the applicants; that the relevant rule related to responsibility of Kot In charge further exonerates the applicant from any entrustment or responsibility; that the case of applicant is of further inquiry and after completion of investigation no purpose left to keep him behind the bars; that other co-accused have been released on bail and on the basis of rule of consistency, the applicant is also entitled to be treated on the same footing.
' The learned State counsel opposed the application by submitting that sufficient material in the form of inquiry has been collected during investigation to conclude that the applicants do not deserve concession of bail; that the applicants are prima facie connected with the commission of offence.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted that the applicant Shah Muhammad was posted as Kot In charge and the applicant Khan Muhammad as line officer in Police Line, Barkhan. The management of arms and ammunitions, its distribution and movement, is codified under the relevant rules and regulations. The facts related to missing of arms and ammunitions from the Kot Room of Police Line, Barkhan is not disputed. The contention of learned counsel that the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And no fruitful purpose would serve to keep the applicant behind the bars after completion of investigation. In this regard, it may be observed that by now it is well-settled proposition of law, that even in respect of offences not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., the court may decline to admit an accused on bail, if there exists a recognized exceptional circumstances. The instant case does not involve an ordinary criminal matter. The applicants were holding public offices and they were entrusted with the auty to ensure that the arms and ammunitions kept in Police Line, Barkhan was for the purpose of protection and safeguard the life and property of public at large. The missing of huge quantity of arms and ammunitions from the law enforcing officials not only made them liable for breach of trust and misappropriation but above incident has endangered the public peace and tranquility.
8. In the present case, the missing of arms and ammunitions have also not been recovered so far and the apprehension of its misuse in the prevailing circumstances cannot be ruled out. The responsibilities of applicants as per their designation, is a matter of evidence. Prima facie there is sufficient evidence on record to connect the applicants with the commission of offence, as such in such-like cases, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail in view of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled (Imtiaz Ahmed v. The State) reported in PLD SC 545 held as under:-- "It may observe that a distinction is to be made between an offence which is committed against an individual like a theft and an offence which is directed against the society as a whole for the purpose of bail. Similarly, a distinction is to be kept in mind between an offence committed by an individual in his private capacity and an offence committed by a public functionary in respect of or in connection with his public office for the aforesaid purpose of bail. In the former cases, the practice to allow bail in cases not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In the absence of an exceptional circumstance may be followed, but in the latter category, the Courts should be strict in exercise of discre tion of bail. In my view, the above category of the offenders belongs to a distinct class and they qualify to be treated falling within an exceptional circumstance of the nature warranting refusal of bail even where maximum sentence is less than 10 years' R.I. For the offence involved provided the Court is satisfied that prima facie, there is material on record to connect the accused concerned with the commission of the offence involved."
9. In the present case, I would not like to comment at this stage about the merits of the case. Any observations made hereinabove, are tentative in nature, which shall not effect the merits of the case. The trial Court while dismissing the bail application of applicants, exercised jurisdiction, which has not been found to be arbitrary or against the law declared.
For what has been discussed above, I find no merits in these applications, which are dismissed.