ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S – 50 of 2019

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of bail application

04.3.2019

Mr. Irshad Hussain Dharejo Advocate for the Applicants

Mr. Liaquat Ali Jatoi, Advocate for the complainant

Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the applicants after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object fired at PW Ghulam Muhammad with intention to commit his murder, caused him butt and hatchet blows and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2. On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge Khairpur, the applicants now have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 497 Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that; the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy their dispute with them over plot; the firing is ineffective one, as per medical certificate no hatchet injury is found to have been caused to the injured, and offence is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. By contending so, he sought for grant of bail to the applicants on point of further inquiry.

4. Learned DPG for the State has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicants while learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that the offence which they have committed is serious in nature. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the cases of Amjad Javed vs. The State (PLD 2007 Karachi 336); Ghulam Shabbir and another vs. The State (2010 Y L R 2679); Muhammad Hanif vs. The State (2007 Y L R 809); Muhammad Naeem vs. The State (2005 Y L R 3182); and Khial Muhammad vs. The State through Shaheedullah (2011 P. Cr. L J 1308).

5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the firing is ineffective one, the injuries sustained by the injured as per provisional medical certificate have been caused to him with some hard and blunt substance. It belies the narration made in the FIR to the effect that the injured was also caused injury with hatchet. Parties are already disputed over plot and learned DPG for the State has recorded no objection to the grant of bail to the applicants. In these circumstances, the applicants are found entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry.

7. The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances, same as such hardly support his case.

8. In view of above, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

Judge

ARBROHI