353, 324, 394, 34 PPC

IN  THE  COURT   OF   ASJ V. AT KARACHI CENTRAL

Bail Application in CASE No.  79/2013

ALI RAZA @ UMAIR

Son of Abdul BARI,

Muslim, adult,

Presently confined in

CENTRAL JAIL,

Karachi.          ………………………….            APPLICANT/ACCUSED

VERSUS

The STATE          …………………………….                      RESPONDENT

FIR No. 131/13

U/S. 353, 324, 394,34 PPC.

P.S. Gulbahar.

BAIL APPLICATION U/S. 497 CRPC

On behalf of the Applicant, above named, it is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge him on Bail in consideration of the following facts and grounds: 

BRIEF FACTS

As per an FIR, the complainant stated:

“He is posted at Madadgar 15, Nazimabad, Karachi, today, they were on patrolling duty alongwith other employee, PC, M. Hayat 12008, today during patrolling at 1800 hrs. they were coming from Lasbela Bridge, from one way, at front of habib patti a red color car was parked, at sitting on driving seated person was being to be snatched by two persons, with loaded pistol, ridded on motor cycle, on lalkar, to avoid arrest, with intention to kill, stared firing, my other above said employee on self defense, counter fired, due to counter fire one person, Slonel S/o. Pervez, who was being snatched, was injured, one accused was arrested and one succeeded to escape,  and arrested  accused was searched one pistol 30 bored with 3 loaded magazines, mobile nokia 101, cash of Rs. 280/- were  recovered. Hence this case.

GROUNDS

1.                  That the Applicant is quite innocent and falsely implicated in this case and story in this case is false and fabricated by the complainant due to show efficiency into the eyes of high officials, and on non compliance of demanded illegal gratification.

2.                  That the proceedings has been stopped for want of evidence under section 249 Cr.P.C, for want / lack of evidence by Hon’ble Court VII th. JM Karachi Central, in connected Case No. 2606/2012, U/S. 13-d, A.O.,  hence the applicant is entitled for concession of bail. True copy of the said OREDR is annexed herewith and marked as annexure “A”

3.                  That That no incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant/accused and recovery is foisted one, the applicant/accused was arrested from bus stop waiting for his bus, then suddenly police came and put him in police mobile but due to non compliance of demanded illegal gratification..

4.                  That it is still to be seen as to which of the parties was aggressor.

5.                  That as per prosecution version,  there was a exchange of ineffective firing between police party and accused persons except one person, Sonel S/o. Pervez, was injured by the P.C, M. HAYAT’s Fire.

6.                  That  neither any one received bullet injury nor any scratch to any member of police party consist of PC M. Hayat and the complainant, nor any vehicle/motor cycle from both sides hit or damaged in alleged encounter.

                                                                              

7.                  That  no empties recovered from place of incident. The alleged recovery was produced by the complainant in police station, which creates doubt and false implication cannot be ruled out. Hence, it is a fit case of further probe in the circumstances.

8.                  That no specific role has been assigned by the prosecution in the alleged police en-counter, but the alleged accused has been booked to show efficiency into the eyes of high officials. As per prosecution, the I.O. of the case, the non-arrested started firing, with intention, to kill the complainant.

9.                  That as per prosecution  the applicant was arrested with pistol loaded with three live rounds, it is strange a person armed with pistol loaded with three live rounds he kept standing with no resistance, no repeating Fire by the applicant/accused, the circumstances motioned in FIR create doubt, and false implication cannot be ruled out. Hence, it is a fit case of further probe in the circumstances.

10.             That the alleged search was made by the complainant himself, no one was said to any independent person to be witness. The alleged recovery was produced by the complainant in police station, So there is violation of mandatory provisions section 103 Cr.P.C.

11.             That the all Mashirs of Arrest & Site Plan are not resident of locality/vicinity but the Police Officials, Subordinates while the place of occurrence is well-populated area of the locality and I.O has not said to any independent person to be witness while it was day time 1800 hrs., So there is violation of mandatory provisions section 103 Cr.P.C.

12.             That the applicant is behind bar since his arrest more than nine months.

13.             That investigation has been completed and the challan has been submitted in court already in this case and the applicant no more required for the purpose of investigation.

14.             That the applicant is a peaceful law abiding citizen, he is behind the bar for the last more than nine months since his arrest, not a previous convicted nor a hardened criminal and neither he will temper with P.Ws nor will he abscond, as he is permanent resident of Karachi.

15.             That if the accused/applicant is not granted bail he will not be able to defend him properly and he shall be suffered irreparable loss which cannot be measured monetarily and will be humiliated in the eyes of the society.

16.             That the applicant/accused is ready to furnish solvent surety to the entire satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court.

17.             That other ground may be argued at the time of hearing of this bail application.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge him on Bail under the fact and circumstances mentioned above.

Prayed accordingly in the interest of Justice.

Karachi.

Dated: 01/07/13.                                           

S M ZUBAIR

Advocate for the Applicant