IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-364 of 2018

Applicant               :                Ghulam Rasool s/o Khizir Depar,   Through Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Abdullah Soomro, Advocate

Complainant       :                 Seengar Ali through Mr.Ashiq Ali Jatoi, Advocate

The State   :                            Through Mr.Sharafuddin Kanhar,  A.P.G

Date of hearing   :                  10.09.2018          

Date of order      :                  10.09.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention fired at complainant Seengar Ali with intention to commit his murder, those fires eventually hit to his relative Abdul Aziz, 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 on account of long standing enmity; there is delay of about three days in lodging of the FIR, the injuries sustained by the injured were not on vital part of his body, one of the injury sustained by the injured even otherwise on examination by Medical Board has been found to have manipulated. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant as according to him his case is calling for further enquiry. In support of his contention he relied upon cases of Faisal Nawaz vs. the State (2010 PCr.LJ-1644), and 2). Muhammad Illyas vs. the State (2010 PCr.LJ-379).

4.                Learned A.P.G and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has been attributed the specific role of causing fire shot injuries to the injured. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon case of Mumtaz vs. the State (2012 SCMR-556).  

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

6.                There is unexplained and un-plausible delay of about three days in lodging of the FIR, such delay could not be lost sight of as it is reflecting consultation. No fire shot injury hit to the complainant though the same were made at him within very close range, which appears to be significant. The sustaining of fire shot injuries by the injured is appearing to be mysterious. The injuries even otherwise were sustained by the injured on non vital part of his body. One of the injuries sustained by the injured even otherwise on medical examination has been found to have been manipulated. The applicant is in custody for more than two months. The parties are already disputed. 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.                The case law relied upon by learned counsel A.P.G and learned counsel for the complainant is of no help to the prosecution or the complainant as it is relating to a murder case.

8.                In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

9.                Above are the reasons of short order dated 10.09.2018, where by the applicant was admitted to bail.

                                                                            J U D G E