IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-338 of 2021

Applicant: Dawood s/o Muhammad Yousif,

Through Mr. Abdul Wahab Shaikh,

Advocate.

Complainant: Shahbaz Ali s/o Hakim Ali,

Through Mr. Habibullah Chandio, Advocate.

State: Through Mr. Syed Sardar Ali Shah ,

Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing: 23-08-2021

Date of Decision: 23-08-2021

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through the captioned bail application, applicant Dawood s/o Muhammad Yousif, seeks his post arrest bail in Crime No. 157/2019, registered at Police Station Tharoshah, for the offences U/S 302,149, 114, 337-H(2), 311 P.P.C. Earlier his bail application was declined by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze, vide order dated 21.05.2021.

2. As per F.I.R, on the day of incident the complainant, his brothers Muhammad Sharif and Miskeen, cousin Ali Muhammad were available in the lands. At about 06.30 a.m., accused persons, namely, 1) Dawood Solangi armed with Repeater, 2) Muhram Solangi armed with pistol, 3) Manzoor Solangi armed with pistol, 4) Altaf Solangi armed with pistol 5) Mst Mithan empty handed, 6) Shoukat empty handed emerged there and Shoukat and Mst. Mithan instigated others to kill them as Muhammad Sharif was their Karo. On such instigation accused Dawood Solangi made straight fire of his repeater upon Muhammad Sharif, which hit him upon his right leg and fell down; accused Muhram Solangi also made straight fire with his pistol upon Muhammad Sharif, which hit him at the same place and thereafter the accused persons fled away by making aerial firing. They brought the injured at Government Hospital wherefrom he was referred to Nawabshah but when they reached at Sakrand Muhammad Sharif expired. The complainant lodged the F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is delay of one day in registration of F.I.R and the same has not been explained by the complainant; that F.I.R was registered with false facts; that co-accused Mst. Mithan lodged FIR No. 125 of 2019 U/s 452, 365-B, 506/2, 149 PPC at PS Tharoshah against the complainant party hence the complainant party managed this false case. Learned counsel further submits that there are contradictions in between ocular evidence and medical evidence. Lastly, he prayed for grant of post arrest bail to the applicant/accused.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the applicant is charged with specific role in the F.I.R for causing fire arm injury to the deceased Muhammad Sharif; that all the witnesses supported the version of the complainant; that medical evidence is in line with ocular evidence. He has prayed that bail application of the applicant may be dismissed.

5. Learned D.P.G. submits that there is no contradiction in ocular evidence and medical evidence and the medical evidence is supportive to the ocular account, therefore, he has also prayed for rejection of the bail application of the applicant/accused.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record with their able assistance.

7. Admittedly the name of the applicant/accused is mentioned in the F.I.R with specific role that he has caused firearm injury to the deceased Muhammad Sharif; version given by the complainant in the FIR was supported by the PWs in their 161 Cr.P.C statements; Ocular evidence is supported by the medical evidence; the delay in registration of F.I.R has been properly explained by the complainant in the F.I.R. In the similar facts and circumstances the Supreme Court has declined the bail in the case of SHOUKAT ILAHI V. JAVED IQBAL AND OTHERS (2010 SCMR 966), wherein Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:-

“6.We have given due consideration to the submission made and have gone through the material available on record. From the record, we find that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR; that the motive had been alleged against him; that a specific role of raising Lalkara was assigned to him and that it was specifically mentioned that he and co-accused fired at the deceased, which hit him. The PWs have supported the case in their 161 Cr.P.C statements which is further corroborated by the medical evidence, as according to Medical Officer the deceased had six firearm injuries out of them two were exit wounds. Thus, prima facie incident has been committed by more than one person. From the material available on record, we are of the view that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is involved in the case.”

8. In these circumstances; I am of the considered view that the applicant has not made out his case for grant of post arrest bail. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application stands dismissed.

9. 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