Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 436, 188, 149, 353 and 427‑‑Bail‑‑Accused charged for instigating mob to set a Police Station on fire‑‑Statements of forty prosecution witnesses recorded out of whom some were processionists and police officials who all specifically stated that police station was set on fire on instigation of accused‑‑Bail refused.

M . M . Pirzada for Applicant. A.R. Kazi; A.A.‑G. for the State.

Applicant and several other co‑accused are facing trial for offences under sections 436, 188, 149, 353 and 427, P.P.C. Applicant Abu Bakar filed his first application for bail before arrest in the High Court and was granted interim bail vide order dated 18‑11‑1986. Subsequently this order of grant of interim bail was recalled for the reason that applicant and his counsel were both absent on 22‑12‑1986 and in the result the bail application was dismissed. Applicant Abu Bakar filed second application for bail before arrest which has been disposed of vide order dated 11‑1‑1987 on merits. In this order while dismissing the bail application inter alia three grounds were considered which disentitle applicant to bail before arrest. Firstly it was alleged that applicant himself instigated the mob not to spare Police Station and set it on fire. Secondly his name appeared in F.I.R. Thirdly there was no allegation of malice against Police Officer for false implication of the applicant. After the dismissal of application for bail before arrest for the second time in the High Court, applicant went to the trial Court and surrendered himself and subsequently his application for bail after arrest was considered on merits and rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 28‑2‑1987. This is third bail application in the High Court and the grounds urged are that no policeman was injured by the nob but on the other hand, four persons from the mob were injured and one person had died and a direct complaint has been filed against the police officer, which is pending. second ground is that all accused persons have been released on bail with the exception of present applicant and he is involved because he is Ward President of P.P.P. in Thatta. On enquiry, learned counsel for the State has stated that in the District of Thatta there are 90 to 100 Wards and in one of such Wards, applicant is President of P. P. P. .

On the other hand, Mr. A.R. Kazi on behalf of State has submitted that case against the present applicant is that he was one of the main leaders who had led the procession of the mob and not only that but he instigated loudly and clearly asking the mob not to spare the Police Station and set it on fire. It is on account of the instigation that the mob set the Police Station on fire and in the result large scale damage was done. It is stated that Police Check Post Baahan was made of thatchet and straw containing record of Police Station K.T. Bunder with registers 1 to 25. There were papers relating to crime No.l of 86 to 9/86 alongwith case diaries. There was case diary of case No.84/85. There was register No.l alongwith case properties and one history sheet and 46 personal files. There was register No.16 and there were ammunition in the trunks and also misc. records and files. Properties mentioned above belonging to the Police Station all got burnt and were converted in the ashes.

Apart from this, near the Police Station, there were two land his/ residences meant for two constables in which there were lying cots, beddings and Government property. There were seven Government trunks as well. Those trunks are also broken. Residential accommodation for Constables was also set on fire and the property was burnt to ashes.

Mr. Kazi has stated that in the Police papers available with him he can see statements of 40 witnesses recorded out of whom there are police officials and processionists and they all have A specifically stated that applicant Abu Bakar had instigated, upon which the Police Station was set on fire. Section 436, P.P.C. relates to mischief by fire and is punishable with life imprisonment and is non‑bailable. For the facts and reasons stated above, I do not consider it as a fit case for grant of bail. Bail application is, therefore, dismissed.