IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-484 of 2018

Applicant               :                Ali Hassan son of Janib by caste Shar

Through Mr.Ahmed Bux Abro, Advocate

Complainant       :                  Abdul Haq Shar, through

Mr.Saleemullah Ghanghro, Advocate.

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

Date of hearing   :                  15.10.2018

Date of order      :                  15.10.2018

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 committing trespass into house of complainant Abdul Haq, caused butt blows to PWs Anwar Ali, Ghulam Qadir, Muhammad Khan, Nazar Muhammad, Mst.Naziran, Mst.Shabiran, Mst.Sakina, Mst.Leela and Mst.Ameer Zadi and then went away by making fires at complainant Abdul Haq with intention to commit his murder and creating harassment by making aerial firing, for that the present case was registered.

2.                On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Qamber, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 497 Cr.PC.

3.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police, there is counter version of the incident, the firing is ineffective one, the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of causing butt blow to PW Ghulam Qadir, co-accused Hadi Bux and Mehboob have already been admitted to bail, the parties are already disputed over the landed property. 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 Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others Vs. the State (PLD 2017 SC-730).

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.G for the State recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that the complainant party has compounded the offence with him. By stating so, they caused filing of affidavit by complainant Abdul Haq, which was taken on record.

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

6.                There is delay of about two days in lodgment of the FIR, such delay could not be lost sight as it is reflecting consultation. The firing is ineffective one, which is also belied by the fact that there is no recovery of empty from the place of incident. The role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent that he caused butt blow to PW Ghulam Qadir with his Kalashnikov. There is no recovery of Kalashnikov from the applicant. The parties are already disputed over the landed property. There is counter version of the incident and more-so complainant Abdul Haq has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant by filing his affidavit stating therein that he has compounded the offence with him (applicant).  In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the case of applicant is calling for further enquiry.

7.                In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- 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

..