1. Applicant Master Shahzad was named in the F.I.R. Registered on 4-6-1995 at P.S. Saoodabad, Karachi-East as one of the terrorists, who had thrown a bomb inside the boundary wall of police station Saoodabad with the intention to kill the police personnel. The explosion caused by the bomb had damaged a police vehicle. The police personnel, who had seen the incident appear to have identified the assailants whose names are given in the F.I.R. Including the present applicant.
2. The case against the applicant has been challaned and the trial is taking place in the Court of Special Judge (STA) for offences under sections 3 and 4, Explosive Substance Act and sections 147, 148, 149, 353, and 324. P.P.C. The request for bail for the applicant was turned down by the trial Judge and thereafter, the present application has been moved in this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant, while arguing for grant of bail, contended that there is contradiction in the contents of the Mashirnama of arrest of the applicant and the statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C inasmuch as the Mashirnama of arrest shows that the applicant was arrested on 12-7-1995 while the statement of head constable Muhammad Ishaque shows the date of arrest of the applicant to be 13-7-1995. The other ground for grant of bail urged on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant could not have been identified at the time of incident and that the police had falsely named the applicant in the F.I.R. Yet another ground for grant of bail urged before us was that the only witnesses in this case are police witnesses. The counsel appearing for the State has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.
3. We have given our consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel and the facts on record.
4. The applicant alognwith the co-accused had thrown an explosive substance at the police station with the intention to kill police personnel. The substance actually exploded and caused damage to a vehicle. Fortunately, there was no loss of human life. The police personnel, who were present at the time of incident, have named the present applicant as one of the attackers. Therefore, prima facie, there is ocular evidence against the applicant of having caused the explosion and the offence is covered by sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and the punishment for such offence is death sentence. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant about the contradiction in the date of arrest of the applicant is of little consequence for consideration of the bail.
5. The last contention of the counsel about the police personnel being the only witnesses also does not impress us as the incident has taken place at a police station and the police personnel are the only natural witnesses of such incident. There is nothing on record to suggest that the police personnel have any personal animosity against the present applicant. We, therefore, find no cogent reason for grant of bail to the applicant.
6. The bail application of the applicant was dismissed by a short order on 20-9-1995 and these are the reasons for the same.