ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No. S-570 of 2018.

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Applicant: Abdul Ghaffar son of Punhal, bycaste Burdi, Resident of village Fateh Muhammad Burdi, Taluka Kingri, District Khairpur. Presently confined at Central Prison Khairpur.

Through Mr. Ajeebullah Junejo advocate.

The State: Through Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing. 05-11-2018.

Date of decision. 05-11-2018.

O R D E R.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- By this Order, I intend to dispose of the instant bail application arising out of Crime No. 91/2012, offence u/s 302, 337H(ii), 148, 149 P.P.C registered at PS Piryaloi. This bail application is directed against the order dated 06-07-2017 passed by learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge Khairpur, whereby the Bail Application of the applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar was declined.

2. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Abdul Majeed Burdi lodged the F.I.R. on 22-12-2012 alleging therein that on 21-12-2012 he along with his son Mansoor Ahmed, brother Atta Muhammad and cousin Nazeer Ahmed went to irrigate their land. At about 10-00 pm, they reached near the Mango garden of Khamiso Burdi, suddenly five persons came out from the Mango garden, who intercepted the complainant party. The complainant party identified two persons on the light of torch namely Abdul Sattar and Abdul Ghaffar both armed with rifles and remaining persons were unidentified armed with guns. Accused Abdul Sattar asked the complainant that his son has taken their share of labour, hence they will not spare him and commit his murder. Saying so, accused Abdul Ghaffar made straight fire upon the son of the complainant with the intention to commit his murder, which hit him on the right side of his head. Accused Abdul Sattar gave butt blow on the right eye and unidentified accused persons made aerial firing. Accused persons said that Mansoor Ahmed son of the complainant has expired, hence they escaped. Ultimately complainant lodged the above said F.I.R.

3. It is, inter-alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that complainant has disclosed in the F.I.R. that applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar made straight fire upon Mansoor Ahmed, the son of complainant, but in his evidence, the complainant has stated that accused Sattar fired from his rifle, which hit his son Mansoor Ahmed on his head; that co-accused Abdul Sattar from whom crime weapon was recovered, has been granted bail on 01-06-2013 and the case of applicant/accused is identical to that of co-accused; that nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant/accused; that it has been published in daily newspaper KAWISH dated 23-12-2012 that one dead body having firearm injury was found by the co-villagers from the Mango garden, who have informed the police, therefore, applicant/accused is entitled for the concession of bail.

4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has conceded the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant/accused.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned DPG for the State and have gone through the material available on the record.

6. It is borne out from the record that complainant Abdul Majeed has stated in the F.I.R. that applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar made straight fire shot upon Mansoor Ahmed, the son of complainant, which hit him at his head and co-accused Abdul Sattar caused butt blows of rifle on his right eye, but complainant in his deposition/evidence recorded on 25-08-2016 before learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Khairpur has deposed that accused Sattar has fired from his rifle which hit his son Mansoor on his head, applicant/accused Ghaffar gave butt blows of rifle on the forehead of his son/deceased Mansoor Ahmed. The PWs in their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P C have stated that accused Abdul Sattar has fired from his rifle to the deceased Mansoor Ahmed. The version of the complainant is not supported by the PWs. Furthermore, the complainant has changed his version before the trial Court while adducing his evidence, hence the case of the prosecution has become of two version and it is yet to be determined by the trial Court that which version of the complainant is correct when entire evidence will be recorded. I am also mindful of the facts that a tentative assertion is to be made just to find out as to whether the alleged applicant/accused is connected with the commission of offence or not. While keeping in mind the above legal position, after going through the material available on record, the applicant/accused has successfully made out a case of further enquiry in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

7. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed and applicant/accused is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Three Lac) and P.R bond in the like amount to the entire satisfaction of learned trial Court.

8. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the time of trial.

Judge

Nasim/P.A