IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-375 of 2021

Applicant: Ameer Bux Sanghar,

through Mr.Ubedullah Ghoto, Advocate

Complainant: Shabbir Ahmed

through Anwar Ali Lohar, Advocate

State: Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi

Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing: 04-10-2021

Date of Decision: 04-10-2021

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through instant bail application, applicant Ameer Bux son of Muhammad Soomar @ Haji Soomar Sanghar, seeks his post-arrest bail in Crime No.03/2021, registered at Police Station Sarhad, for the offences u/s 324, 382, 147, 148 and 149 PPC. His earlier bail plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/ (MCTC) Ghotki, vide order dated 12.06.2021.

2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.01.2021 at 1900 hours applicant along with other co-accused duly armed with pistol caused fire arm injuries to the son of complainant namely Najeeb Ali and has taken away his motorcycle.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicant has been involved by complainant due to enmity, which is admitted in FIR; that there is delay of 25 hours in registration of F.I.R; that prior to registration of FIR, NC was recorded by ASI Qamerdin wherein name of applicant is not mentioned; that several FIRs were registered against the applicant and complainant party; that it was night time incident and identification of applicant at night time is very doubtful; that the medical certificate was challenged by the applicant party and medical board has been constituted by the competent authority; that co-accused Muhram has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 06.05.2021; that no fire was repeated by the applicant; that the case against applicant requires further enquiry. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicants has placed his reliance on the cases of Huzoor Bux and another v. The State (2016 P.Cr.J. Note 59) Muhammad Essa v. The State and another (2012 SCMR 646), Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 733), Nooruddin and another v. The State (2005 MLD 1267), Tariq Bashir and five others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). Lastly he prayed for grant of bail to applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant and DPG have vehemently opposed the grant of bail and contended that name of applicant transpired in the FIR with specific role of causing fire arm injuries to Najeeb Ali on his chest which is vital part of the body; that the ocular evidence is supported by medical certificate; that the delay has been fully explained; that the subsequent medical certificate has no value in the evidence; that the offence falls within prohibitory clause; that all the witnesses have supported the version of the complainant in their 161 C.P.C statements. Lastly they prayed that bail application of the applicant may be dismissed. They have relied upon on the case of Bilal Khan v. the State through P.G Punjab and another (2020 SCMR 937).

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record with their able assistance.

6. Admittedly the name of the applicant/accused is mentioned in the F.I.R with specific role of causing fire arm injury to complainant’s son Najeeb Ali on his chest which too supported by statements of other PWs and as per medical certificate issued by the Doctor, the said injury was declared as Juarh Jaifa which provides punishment up to 10 years and kind of weapon have been stated by the Doctor as discharged from firearm. The delay in registration of FIR has been explained by the complainant by stating that firstly he took the injured to police station and then hospital wherefrom he was referred to another hospital and after admitting the injured in hospital he came to Police Station and lodged the FIR. As regards to the identification in the night time it is admitted that the applicant and complainant party are residing in the same village and knows each other very well, therefore, there is no chance of mistaken identity. From the tentative assessment of material available on record it is established that there is sufficient iota of evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of offence. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Muhram has been granted bail by this court therefore applicant is also entitled for concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency has no force as the co-accused Muhram has been granted bail by this court on the ground that no active role has been assigned to him, however the case of present applicant is distinguishable to that of co-accused Muhram as the applicant fired from his pistol which hit PW Najeeb Ali, therefore, the applicant is also not entitled for the concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency. It is well settled principal of law that the court has to make tentative assessment while deciding the bail application and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage. The case law referred by the learned counsel for the applicant are based on different facts and circumstances to the case of present applicant, while the case law referred by learned counsel for complainant supports the case of complainant.

7. In these circumstances; I am of the considered view that the applicant has failed to make out his case for grant of post-arrest bail. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application stands dismissed.

8. 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.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA