IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,LARKANA
Cr. Bail Appln. No. S-510 of 2020
Cr. Bail Appln. No. S-546 of 2020
Applicant: In Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S-510/2020,
Syed Zaman Shah,
Through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate.
Applicant: In Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S-546/2020,
Syed Qasim Shah,
Through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate.
Complainant: Ali Muhammad Umrani,
Through Mr. Ghulam Rasool Narejo, Advocate.
State: Through Mr. Muhammad Noonari,
Deputy Prosecutor General.
Date of hearing: 22-02-2021
Date of Decision: 22-02-2021
O R D E R
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.-Through Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S-510/2020, applicant Syed Zaman Ali Shah, seeks pre-arrest bail, whose bail plea was declined by the Additional Sessions Ratodero, vide order dated 08.09.2020. Through Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S-546/2020, the applicant Syed Qasim Shah seeks post arrest bail, whose bail application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero vide order dated 15.10.2020. Both the applications are arising out same F.I.R. No.23/2020,registered at Police Station Lashari, for offence under Sections 324, 147,148,149,504,337-A(i), 337-H(ii) P.P.C, therefore, are disposed of with this common order.
2. Facts of the case as per FIR lodged by Ali Mohammad Umrani on 08.07.2020, at 2300 hours, at P.S Lashari are that there is property dispute in between complainant party with Zaman Shah. On 07.08.2020, he along with Mazar Khan and Gul Bahar (brothers), Gulzar Ahmed (cousin) went on the tractor for ploughing the land, at 11:30 a.m they noticed accused Qasim Shah armed with pistol, Mehboob Shah armed with repeater, Rasool Shah armed with hatchet, Syed Zaman Shah armed with pistol, Hassan Shah armed with gun, Syed Nabi Shah armed with lathi and one un-identified person armed with lathi. Therefore, accused Zaman Shah abused and said that as to why have came at land. On that they asked him that to be a gentleman. On saying so accused Zaman Shah caused repeater shot on Mazar Khan (brother of complainant), which hit him on his left arm and accused Qasim Shah caused pistol shot on Mazhar Khan, which hit him on his left arm with intention to commit murder, while accused Mehboob Shah caused butt blows of repeater to Mazar Khan, which hit him on his head. The accused Rasool Shah caused back side of hatchet blow to Gul Bahar, which hit him on his head and accused Nabi Shah caused lathi blows to Gulzar Ahmed, which hit him on his head. Thereafter, all the accused persons caused lathi blows to Mazar Khan, Gul Bahar and Gulzar Ahmed as well as kicks and fists blows and went away by firing in the air. The complainant brought the injured Mazar Khan, Gul Bahar and Gulzar Ahmed at P.S, wherefrom obtained letter for treatment. Then the complainant after leaving the injured persons in the hospital, went to Police Station and lodged the FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused submits that applicants/accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case with malafide intention by the complainant, as complainant party occupied lawful property of applicants/accused and such land was handed over to the applicants party by the Court in criminal direct complaint u/s 3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. There is also inordinate delay of 01 day in lodging the FIR, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. All sections applied in the FIR, does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 (i) Cr.P.C, however section 324 PPC is to be determined at the time of trial, after recording the evidence. He further argued that counter FIR bearing No.24/2020 has been registered for same incident, in which applicants/accused and their relatives became injured. He further contended that accused Syed Mehboob Ali Shah, Syed Rasool Shah and Syed Hassan Shah were admitted on pre-arrest bail vide order dated 08.09.2020, but bail of applicants/accused was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero. He has prayed for grant of post arrest bail to the applicant/accused Qasim Ali Shah so also prayed for confirmation of bail of the applicant/accused Syed Zaman Ali Shah.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicants/accused stating that the names of applicants/accused are mentioned in the FIR with specific role, the complainant and witnesses have fully supported the version of complainant; delay was explained by the complainant in his F.I.R, the medical evidence is in line, hence sufficient material is available on the record to connect the accused in the commission of offence. He has prayed for dismissal of the bail applications.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific role. The delay in FIR has been fully explained by the complainant because they brought the injured persons at hospital, where they remained busy for treatment of injured persons. The complainant and his witnesses have fully supported the version of complainant, as well as medical evidence is also supported the version of complainant. The medical evidence is in line and sufficient material is available on the record to connect the applicants in the commission of alleged offence. Lastly he prayed for rejection of bail applications.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record and the police file with their able assistance.
7. From perusal of the F.I.R, it appears that there is landed dispute in between the parties and such land was handed over to the applicant party by the court in criminal direct complaint U/S 3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Counter FIR bearing No.24/2020 of the same incident has also been registered at the same Police Station by the applicant/accused against the relatives of the complainant. The facts regarding receiving injuries by the applicants party has been concealed by the complainant party in the FIR.
8. All the injuries appear to be punishable upto 7 years and do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Tanveer versus The State and another(PLD 2017 SC 733), Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:-
"In cases of this nature, not falling within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C., invariably grant of bail is refused on flimsy grounds. This practice should come to an end because the public, particularly accused persons charged for such offences are unnecessarily burdened with extra expenditure and this Court is heavily taxed because leave petitions in hundreds are piling up in this Court and the diary of the Court is congested with such like petitions."
9. The complainant party concealed the facts regarding the injuries received by the applicants party for which F.I.R No.24/2020 was registered at same Police Station showing the same place of incident and its time and date. In these circumstances, it is to be seen after recording the evidence that which party was aggressor.
10. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of bail and the same is to be decided tentatively. From the tentative assessment of material available on record, it appears that the applicant/accused Syed Zaman Ali Shah has made out his case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S-510/2020 is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant Syed Zaman Ali Shah vide order dated 05.10.2020 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
11. Resultantly, Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S-546/2020 is allowed. Applicant/accused Syed Qasim Shah is granted post arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
12. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.
J U D G E
Abdul Salam/P.A