FAHIM AHM ED SIDDIQUI, J. The applicant is seeking his release on bail during the pendency of trial in a case registered against him through FIR 117/2 1 of PS Moro under section 9(c), CNS Act, 1997 Earlier, a similar plea of the applicant was declined by the trial. Court.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per FIR lodged against the applicant and co-accused are that on 24.03.2021 at 2200 hours police party of Police Station Moro headed by SIP Hakimuddin Sahito along with his subordinates left PS for patrolling vide entry No 31 and when reached at Byepass near Abbassi Hotel Moro saw black coloured Corrola Car. Model 2012 without number which was signaled to stop, the driver stopped the Car, out of whom four persons got down thereafter the driver drove away the ar. The police party claimed that they have identified driver of the to be Khadim Hussain son of Mithal Shah.
Then police took personal search of the four persons and recovered charas along with cash respectively from all four apprehended persons/accused. From personal search of present applicant/accused Ismaeel son of Mithal Shah police party recovered 1150 grams of charas from fold of his shalwar and cash of Rs. 1000/- from front pocket of his shirt, Such mashirnama was prepared, accused and property were brought at Police Station where above FIR was lodged.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Mehfooz Ahmed Awan learned counsel for applicant/accused, Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo D P.G and have gone through relevant record and also perused the case law cited during the course of arguments. From whatever uttered before me and scanned from the record I have observed as under:- a) From perusal of the contents of FIR it does not show that the samples were taken out from the recovered charas for chemical examination. b) Record reflects that one Khadim Hussain brother of present applicant/accused filed an application under section 491, Cr.P.C. wherein he asserted that DSP Abdul Hameed Panhwar along with SHO PS Moro and other police force taken away Ismaeel Shah (applicant/accused) along with others and illegally detained at PS, robbed cash, mobile phones and brought them at PS and 2-D corolla car where they illegally detained them. Such raid was conducted and the applicant/ accused and others were shown to have been arrested in the present crime. c) That prior to lodging of the present FIR, applicant/accused Ismaeel Shah had filed an application under section 22-A, B, Cr.P.C. for lodging FIR against the police officials of same district as well as private persons which was allowed and directions were given to SHO concerned for recording statement of complainant, if cognizable offence is made out from his statement. Such order was challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. S-583 of 2018 and the order of trial Court was upheld by this Court. d) That in the year 2019, applicant/accused Ismaeel Shah alias Rehman Shah had also filed Const.
Petition No. S-41 of 2019 against Muhammad Rafique Bohio whose name is mentioned in charge sheet and other police officials of same district. e) That moreover, in the year 2015 Khadim Hussain Shah brother of applicant/accused filed Criminal Misc. Application No.303 of 2015 against excise police of PS Naushehro Feorze for providing protection which was disposed of by learned Sessions Judge /Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Naushehro Feroze after providing protection to ETO Naushehro Feroze vide order dated 24.02.2015.
1) Record further reflects that Khadim Hussain Shah was taken away by police party of PS Naushehro Feroze and such application under section 491, Cr.P.C. was filed by his wife and Raid Commissioner conducted raid at Excise PS Naushehro Feorze wherein Khadim Hussain Shah was found confined in a room attached with excise PS and was hand cuffed and no roaznamcha was available and as such on the directions of learned Sessions Judge Naushehro Feroze FIR No. 89/2015 under section,395, 342, 337-F(i), 506/2, P.P.C. g. That it is alleged during course of arguments that the, applicant gas made a prey of animosity and he was involved in the present crime foisting charas against him, such fact cannot be overlooked. h) The plea of animosity is supported during arguments by bringing on record material against the police of Naushehro Feoze district. i) That witnesses cited in the FIR are police officials working under subordination of complainant hence there is no apprehension of tampering the evidence. j) That it will be determined at trial whether the applicant/accused has committed the alleged offence or he has been implicated due to previous animosity as brought by applicant/accused on record. k) That the investigation has been over and the applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation.
4. In view of above observations, I am of the definite to hold that case for bail is made out as such applicant/accused Ismaeel son of Mithal Shah is admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The instant bail application is disposed off.
5. Before parting, I would like to make it clear that if the applicant after getting bail, remains absent from trial Court and if the trial Court is satisfied that the applicant has become absconder then the trial Court is fully competent to take every action against the applicant and his surety including cancellation of bail without referring to this Court.
6. It is clarified that all of the above observations are purely tentative and will have no bearing upon the trial of the applicant and other co-accused.
7. These are the reasons of my short order dated 07.05.2021 whereby the applicant/acused Ismaeel son of Mithal Shah was granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) before trial Court.