ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 116 of 2017

Applicant:                             Muhammad Saddam s/o. Asghar Hussain,

                                                through Mr. Hasnain Ali Chohan,

                                                Advocate.

Respondent:                          The State, through Mr. Gul Muhammad Farooqui,

                                                ADPP.

Complainant:                        Muhammad Yousuf Lodhi (present in person).

Date of hearing:                    06.03.2017

Date of order:                        06.03.2017

-----------------

O R D E R.

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J:-       Having rejected his earlier bail after arrest application bearing No. 2329 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Karachi West,  applicant/accused Muhammad Saddam s/o. Asghar Hussain, through instant Criminal Bail Application seeks post-arrest bail  in Crime No. 246 of 2016, registered at P.S. Orangi Town, Karachi South, under Section 336/34 P.P.C.     

2.         Precisely, the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Muhammad Yousuf Lodhi lodged aforementioned F.I.R. on 07.12.2016, stating therein that he had purchased one water pump from Saddam Machinery Trade Shop, situated at Orangi Town and since there was a fault in the water-pump, on 13.11.2016 at 1300 hrs., he disclosed it to accused Sadaquat, who asked him to leave the pump with him and take the same in the evening after paying labour charges. The compliant found the pump un-repaired but accused Sadaquat demanded Rs.400/- rupees, as labour charges, on that the complainant asked him to receive Rs.200/- as charges, on that accused started maltreating him and suddenly Saddam and Sadaquat gave blow of something on his right eye, which started bleeding. Thereafter, the complainant first went to Ziauddin Hospital for first aid and then to police station for report, vide Entry No. 41 dated 13.11.2016 at 2050 hours where duty officer SIP Noor Ahmed from issued him a letter and forwarded him to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital for treatment. On 07.12.2016, MLO doctor Muhammad Saleem issued medical report disclosing the injury of complainant as “ITLAF-E-SALAHIYAT UDW”, punishable under Section 336/34  P.P.C.  It is thereafter the instant F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant.

3.         The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant;  that the accused was not present at the time of alleged incident and persons of the locality have also sworn such affidavits to this effect; that there is no eye witness of the incident; that the medico-legal report was issued on 02.12.2016; however, F.I.R. was lodged on 07.12.2016 and  no explanation has been furnished by the complainant for lodging F.I.R. after delay of 05 days; that the complainant has received only one injury on his eye which can be attributed to any one of the accused persons and both cannot be held responsible for causing single injury to complainant;  that the accused is behind bars since 07.12.2016; that the investigation has been completed and accused is no more required for further investigation by the police;  that the accused has made out a case for further enquiry as such, he may be released on bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the cases of Tariq Hassan vs. The State (2003 P.Cr.L.J. 894), Abdul Razzaq vs. The State (PLD 2004 Lahore 480), Khizar Hayat vs. The State and another (2012 YLR 2879), Haji Maa Din and another vs. The State and another (1998 SCMR 1528), Zaigham Ashraf vs. The State and others (2016 SCMR 18), Muhammad Ilyas and another vs. The State (2008 YLR 2833), Muzaffar Ayaz Abid Baloch vs. National Accountability Bureau, Sindh (2008 SCMR 1316), Kamal Din vs. The State (2016 YLR 2638), Abid alias Aabi Arain vs. The State (2016 P.Cr.L.J. Note 109), Zulfiquar Iqbal vs. The State and another (2010 SCMR 401), Abdul Razzaq vs. Ist Additional Sessions Judge and another (2015 YLR 2595) and Shaddi Ullah / Shamshad Khan vs. The State and another (2012 MLD 455).

4.         The complainant, who is present in person, submits that co-accused Sadaqat had caused blow of a hard substance on his eye and thereafter both accused persons gave fist blows on his head due to which he lost eye sight of one eye; as such, accused is not entitled for the concession of bail.

5.         The learned ADPP submits that since complainant has admitted that the injury by hard substance was caused by the co-accused Sadaqat, the present accused cannot be held responsible for same offence; therefore, he concedes that it is a fit case of further enquiry; as such, accused is entitled to be released on bail, 

6.         I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7.         Since the complainant has stated that co-accused Sadaqat caused injury on his eye by hard substance, the vicarious liability of present accused, if any, requires to be thrashed out during the course of trial. The accused is behind the bars since 07.12.2016 and he is no more required for further investigation; therefore, accused is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.  

JUDGE

Athar Zai