1. ' ANWAR HUSSAIN, J.---Through this Application, Applicant Asif Zangejo Jatoi, has assailed the Order dated 17.2.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Larkana, whereby his prayer for Post-arrest Bail has been declined in Crime No,13/2016, registered with Market P.S Larkana, for offence punishable under sections 324 and 353 P.P.0 .
2. ' As per prosecution story on 31.1.2016, SIP. Sartaj Ahmed Jagirani, SHO of P.S. Market, longwith his subordinates were patrolling; they received spy information that notorious criminal viz. Asif Ali Zangejo Jatoi and Kashif Jatoi, accompanying one unknown person on motorcycle, were proceeding from Larkana towards Pir Sher. Police Party after seeing them asked them to stop, on which Asif and Kashif, While taking out pistols made straight fires upon Police Party and tried to run away on motorcycle; the Police chased them and accused persons after leaving motorcycle started running towards northern direction in the gardens and fired upon Police, but then one of the culprit by raising cry sat down, while rest made their escape good; the Police while firing in defence encircled and apprehended the said accused along with pistol, number erased. ASI Muhammad Dawood and H.C. Gada Hussain, were nominated as Mashirs and the apprehended accused disclosed his name as Asif Ali Zangejo Jatoi; he was bleeding from his right leg and further disclosed that while running he has sustained bullet injury at the hands of his escaped companions. He further disclosed that the pistol is unlicensed. The Police also secured Motorcycle and prepared such Mashirnama and ultimately the Accused was taken to the CMC Hospital, Larkana and subsequently the FIR was lodged and case has been challaned.
3. ' Learned Counsel for Applicant contended that the Applicant is innocent, has been falsely implicated in this case by the Police and recovery has been foisted upon him. He further contended that in-fact the Applicant was arrested from the premises of Sessions Court near to outer gate, when he was returning back to his home after attending hearing of case and when he failed to fulfill demand of Police, he has been booked in this false case by causing him injury at his foot. Per learned counsel there are general allegations of ineffective firing against all the accused including Applicant; that none from Police Party received any injury or even scratch during alleged encounter; thus, under the circumstances application of Section 324, P.P.C. Requires further enquiry; that Challan against the Applicant has already been submitted; he is no more required for Investigation and his further detention in Jail would not serve any purpose and that all the prosecution witnesses are Police Officials, hence there is no apprehension of tampering with evidence. Learned counsel has relied upon 2011 SCM R 70, 2004 YLR 104 (D.B. Karachi), 2010 M LD 344 (Karachi), 2007 YLR 1727 (Karachi) and 2000 PCr.LJ 1510 (D.B. Karachi).
4. ' On the other hand, learned D.D.P.P. Has opposed grant of bail to Applicant on the ground that the Applicant in furtherance of common intention with co-accused not only deterred the Police Party from performing their lawful duty, but have also made firing upon them with intention to commit murder and that the offence falls under the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. ' Heard the learned Counsel and gone through the material available on record.
6. As per case of prosecution there was exchange of firing between the Police Party and the Accused Party and as per Challan Sheet fifteen (15) empties of .30-bore pistol, ten (10) empties of 7.62-bore and twenty (20) empties of G-3, were recovered, but neither any member from the Police Party have received any injury nor there is even scratch A to the Police Vehicle and the Applicant has sustained firearm injury on his leg, as such it is case of ineffective firing on the part of the Applicant and since neither any member of the Police was injured nor bullet hit the Police Vehicle, as such the case against the Applicant is of further inquiry. Reference is made to the case of Mumtaz Ali v. The State (2011 SCM R 70) and case of Suleman v. The State (2004 YLR 104 (D.B. Karachi).
7. Moreover, offence under Section 353, P.P.C. Is bailable and all the prosecution witnesses are Police Officials and no independent person has been cited as witness. Challan has already been submitted, so Applicant is not required by the Police for the purpose of Investigation.
8. In view of the above circumstances, the Applicant has been able to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the instant Bail Application stands allowed and the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000/- (One hundred thousand rupees) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
9. ' Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence case of either party at trial.