IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-157 of 2018

Applicant                :                        Saddam s/o Imamuddin by caste Magsi, Through Mr.Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate

Complainant           :                       Mumtaz Ali through Mr.Noushad Ali Taggar,

Advocate

State                          :                       Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G.

Date of hearing      :                       27.08.2018             

Date of order          :                       27.08.2018                         

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by using criminal force, caused fire shot injury to PW Muhammad Qasim on his right buttock, with intention to commit his murder, for that the present case was registered.

2.                    On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned trial Court, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr.PC.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party only to settle their dispute with him over possession of the house, the injury sustained by the injured is not on vital part of his body, the medical certificate in respect of injury sustained by the injured on challenge has been kept in abeyance on account of failure of the applicant to appear before the Medical Board. Co-accused Tariq, Asghar, Taj Muhammad and Nazar Muhammad have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail, as according to him, his case is calling for further enquiry. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Muhammad Umar vs. the State and another (PLD 2004 Supreme Court-477).

4.                    Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of incident by causing fire shot injury to the injured and his role is distinguishable to that of the      co-accused who have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court.

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

6.                    The FIR of the incident is lodged on 22.01.2018, while injury to injured PW Muhammad Qasim is examined by the police with preparation of such memo on 23.01.2018. How this happened? No explanation to it is offered by the prosecution. The injury to the injured is not on vital part of his body. The fire was not repeated. The 161 Cr.PC statements of the PWs are recorded by the police with delay of one day to FIR, such delay could not be lost sight of. The legal validity of the medical certificate issued in respect of injury sustained by the injured has been kept in abeyance on account of failure of the applicant to appear before the Medical Board. The parties being closely related are disputed over possession of house. The case has finally been challaned. The applicant is in custody since the date of arrest which is said to be 26.01.2018. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail as his case is calling for further enquiry.                   

7.                    In view of facts and reasons discussed above, while relying the case law which is referred by learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

8.                    The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                             J U D G E

-