ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

HYDERABAD.

Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S- 962  of   2015

DATE     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

19.10.2015.

Mr. Fazal Qadir Memon, Advocate for applicants.

          Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G. for the State.

                   =

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J:         Applicants / accused Mumtaz and Ghulam Hyder seek post arrest bail in Crime No.85/2015 registered at Police Station Hatri, Hyderabad for offences u/s 324, 147, 148, 149, 504, 337-A(i), 506(ii) PPC.

2.       The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 01.07.2015 complainant took his brother Mir Hassan on his motorcycle, when they reached at the cattle pond of Abdul Hakeem, where it is alleged that accused persons appeared, they were identified on electric as well as moon light as (1) Moor s/o Arzi Gadario, (2) Mumtaz s/o Razi Gadrio armed with hatchets, (3) Ghulam Hyder alias Tali s/o Obhaiyo Gadrio armed with iron rod, (4) Manthar s/o Ditoo Gadrio with pistol and two unknown persons armed with repeaters. They abused to complainant party and stated that as to why they had tracked the foot prints. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused Manthar and unknown accused persons caused butt blows to Mir Hassan, accused Mumtaz caused hatchet blow to Mir Hassan and co-accused Ghulam Hyder caused iron blow to Mir Hasasan. Before registration of FIR, injured was referred to the Hospital and the FIR was lodged on 15.07.2015. After usual investigation, challan was submitted against the accused persons. 3. Bail application was moved on behalf of the applicants/accused before the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the same was rejected by him vide order dated 03.09.2015. Thereafter, applicants/accused approached this Court.

4.       Learned counsel for the applicants/accused Mumtaz and Ghulam Hyder contended that medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular evidence. It is argued that all the injuries have been sustained by injured Mir Hassan with hard and blunt substance. It is also argued that there was delay of 14 days in lodging of the FIR. It is argued that after registration of the instant FIR, another FIR has also been lodged by the complainant bearing No.90/2015 registered at Police Station Hatri, Hyderabad, u/s 324, 506(2), 504, 34 PPC. There is enmity between the parties. It is argued that co-accused Mour has been granted bail by the trial Court and the case of present applicants/accused is identical. Lastly, it is argued that case against the applicants/accused requires further inquiry.

5.       Learned D.P.G. opposed the bail application on the ground that role has been attributed to the applicants/accused Mumtaz and Ghulam Hyder for causing injuries to Mir Hassan.

6.       I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants/accused for the reasons that according to contents of FIR, applicant/accused Mumtaz caused hatchet blow to PW Mir Hassan and Ghulam Hussain caused iron blow to said Mir Hassan but the medical certificate reflects that all the injuries sustained by Mir Hassan were caused by hard and blunt substance. There is major contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence. It appears that incident occurred on 1.7.2015 and the FIR was lodged on 15.7.2015 after a delay of 14 days. It is also argued that co-accused Mour has been enlarged on bail by the trial Court and the case of applicants/accused is identical and applicants/accused are also entitled for same treatment. There is also enmity between the parties and another FIR vide Crime No.90/2015 has been lodged by the complainant against the accused persons. Case has already been finalized and the challan has been submitted. Applicants/accused are no more required for further investigation.

7.       In view of above, prima facie, the case of applicants/accused requires further inquiry as contemplated under sub-section 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the applicants/accused are granted bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One lac) each and P.R. Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.   

8.       Needless to mention here that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the trial Court while deciding the case on merits shall not be influenced upon by said observations.

                                                                             JUDGE

Tufail