IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-521 of 2018

 

Applicants            :                 1). Sajjad son of Aslam Tunio

                                                2). Aasim son of Aslam Tunio

                                                3). Waqar son of Nooral Tunio      

                                                Through Mr.Abid Hussain Qadri,    Advocate

 

Complainant       :                  Naeem Ahmed through

Mr.Ashiq Ali Jatoi, Advocate

 

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

 

Date of hearing   :                  19.11.2018          

Date of order      :                  19.11.2018                   

 

O R D E R

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged by complainant Naeem Ahmed that the applicants with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, caused lathies, hatchets and fire shot injuries to him and PWs Zulfiqar, Shahzeb Atta Muhammad, Aamir, Zia alias Zia-ul-Haq and Nadeem, with intention to commit their murder and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, in order to settle their dispute with them over fish pond, for that the present case was registered. 

2.                On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Qamber, the applicants have 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 applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party by the police, there is delay of one day in lodgment of the FIR and more-so, complainant Naeem Ahmed now by filing his affidavit has recorded no objection to grant of bail to applicants. By contending so, he sought for grant of bail to the applicants, as according to him their case is calling for further enquiry.

4.                Learned A.P.G and learned counsel for the complainant have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that the parties now have compounded the offence outside of the Court.

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

6.                Admittedly, the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day; such delay could not be lost sight of. The parties are already disputed over fish pond. The offence is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 (2) Cr.PC. The complainant now by filing his affidavit has recorded no objection for grant of bail to the applicants by stating therein that he has settled the dispute with the applicants outside of the Court. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicants that as their case is now is calling for further enquiry.

7.                In case of Muhammad Najeeb vs. State (2009 SCMR-448),     it has been held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that;

“complainant initially had nominated the accused in the FIR but later-on through an affidavit he has expressed his satisfaction with regard to innocence of the accused, the case of the accused was of further enquiry”.

 

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

9.                The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

  

 

                                                                                               J U D G E

..