1. This order will dispose of the bail application filed by the applicant Dilbar involved, in Crime No.34 of 2002 of Police Station, Mehar.
2. The facts giving rise to the present application are that on 20-2-2002 at 11-15 a.m. the complainant H.C. Lutufullah along-with other police constables were present in a police picket on Indus High Way near Sehwan Jo Daro. They saw four persons, out of them three persons were armed with DBBL guns, one person was armed with SBBL gun and one was armed with 'Danda'. They tried to rob the vehicles. They were challenged by the police party and an encounter took place between the police and the culprits. In the meantime S.H.O., Police Station Mehar along with his staff came there in a police mobile. The encounter continued for about 10 minutes, thereafter one of the culprits who received injuries, raised cries whereas the remaining three culprits ran away. The injured culprit was apprehended and one 12 bore Double Barrel gun was secured from his possession. On inquiries he disclosed his name as Dilbar. The accused and the property were brought to the police station where police lodged the report. A bail application was moved before the trial Court, but the same was dismissed, hence the present application.
3. The learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that the incident as alleged by the prosecution had not taken place, but the police have involved the applicant falsely and the property has been foisted upon him. He has further stated that no recovery has been made from the place of incident.
4. He has also stated the co-accused have been granted bail by this Court, therefore, the applicant is entitled for the concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. has stated that the applicant was caught red handed at the spot alongwith a gun; that on the next day, the place of incident was seen by the police from where 18/20 empties of cartridges were secured along with blood, therefore, the ocular version is supported by the circumstantial evidence. He has further stated that the applicant is not entitled for the concession of bail.
6. I have given due consideration to the arguments and find that the alleged incident took place near police picket. Apparently it is not appealing to the common sense that the applicant along with three other culprits would go near the police picket and try to rob the vehicles. If they wanted to commit such type of offence, then, natural course for the culprits would have been to commit such offence at far away place from the police picket so that they could not be stopped from committing such offence. However, this point can be thrashed out at the time of trial. The prosecution has led emphasis on the Mashirnama of Wardat from where it is alleged that 18/20 empties cartridges and blood were secured. I have gone through the Mashirnama of Wardat and find that the place of incident was seen at 9-00 a.m. in the morning at day time on the next day of the incident. It has been mentioned in the Mashirnama that on the light or police mobile they had seen the Wardat and found the above articles lying there. It is the case of the prosecution that the place of Wardat was seen during day time then how the empties were secured on the light of police mobile, it appears that either the place of Wardat was seen during night time or Mashirnama of Wardat was not prepared at the place of Wardat, as such, this aspect creates doubt in the recovery made from the Wardat. However, this point can be examined properly at the time of trial when the prosecution will try to explain this discrepancy and then decision can be given in the light of such explanation.
7. After considering the material available on the record, I am of the considered view that the applicant is entitled for the concession of bail, therefore, bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs. two lacs on furnishing solvent surety with PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. The application is allowed.