IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 946 of 2018
Mashooq Ali Wassan
..
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
Date
of Hearing & Short Order : 03.09.2018
Mr.
Ihsan Ali Siyal, advocate
for applicant
Mr.
Ashiq Muhammad, advocate for complainant
Mr. Sagheer Abbasi,
APG
O R D E R
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui,
J: The
applicant is nominated in FIR No. 160/2018 under Section 324, 34 PPC lodged at
PS Steel Town and his bail before arrest was declined by the Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Malir, Karachi as such he filed
the instant bail before arrest. After initial hearing he succeeded in getting
ad-interim pre-arrest bail, which was granted without touching merits and today
it is fixed before me for confirmation or otherwise.
2.
I
have heard the arguments advanced from either side and perused record produced
before me. After getting enlightened from the valued submissions made at bar
and scanning the record, I have observed as under:
(a)
The
allegations against the applicant is that the applicant along with other
co-accused came at the plot of complainant and tried to restrain him from
raising construction and on refusal, he firstly fired at complainant and after
missing the same, he fired at injured witness Anwar Jokhio;
thereafter he ran away with his associates. The injured witness received
firearm injury on his leg and he was shifted to hospital for treatment and
complainant lodged F.I.R.
(b)
The learned counsel of the applicant emphasize upon
certain contradictions appearing in F.I.R. and witnesses statements recorded
under section 161 CrPC but to my view such
contradictions are minor and having no bearing on the prosecution case at this
stage.
(c)
It is revealed from the record that the parties are already on
disputation and the complainant has earlier lodged a complaint regarding
highhandedness of the accused persons including demand of illegal money in
respect of construction on his plot.
(d)
The learned counsel for the applicant also highlighted
the previous dispute and animosity but it is a fact that the anonymity is a
double-edged weapon, which cuts both way as such the
same may provide a motive for the present incident.
(e)
The applicant is well nominated in F.I.R. with a
specific role assigned by the complainant to him and alleged incident is said
to be taken place in presence of witnesses.
(f)
It is not only allegation to use a firearm weapon by
the applicant but factual matrix of the case indicates that the injured
received firearm injury, as such recovery of crime weapon is a crucial aspect of
the present case.
(g)
It is evident from the contents of F.I.R. that
the accused party came to the place of complainant and none received injury
from the accused side; therefore, at least at this stage presumption of
aggression goes against the applicant.
(h)
The injured is present in Court on a wheelchair and
record reveals that he received firearm injury and has undergone a surgery and
plates are fixed to support the fractured bony structure in his leg.
(i)
According to prosecution, due to injuries suffered by
the injured witness, 337-F (VI) has been added in the charge.
3.
In the light of the above observations, I am of the considered
view that no case of extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail has been made out
in favour of the applicant, as such the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the
applicant through the earlier order of this Court is hereby recalled.
4.
The above are the reasons for my short Order
dated 03-09-2018.
J U D G E