IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

 

Crl.Bail Application No.S-513 of 2022

 

Applicants:                              1). Iqrar s/o Sardar Sher Ali Khan,

                                                2). Mumtaz Ali s/o Haider Ali Jakhrani

                                                Through Mr. Abdul Ghani Bijarani, Advocate.

Complainant:                           Abdullah s/o Jado by caste Domki

                                                Through Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijarani, Advocate

The State:                                Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G

Date of hearing:                       16.01.2023

Date of decision:                      16.01.2023 

O R D E R

 

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J:- Through listed bail application,  the above named applicants seek their admission to pre-arrest bail in Crime No.06/2022, registered with Police Station, RD-109, District Kashmore @ Kandhkot, for offences punishable U/S.324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-D, 148, 149 PPC. Earlier, the bail plea of applicants was turned down vide order dated 02.09.2022, passed by learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Kandhkot.

2.                Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 27.06.2022, at about 1600 hours, complainant Abdullah Domki got registered the FIR with P.S RD-109, District Kashmore @ Kandhkot, to the effect that on 26.06.2022, at about 0440 hours, the present applicants/accused alongwith co-accused  Saifuddin, Meharuddin, Nooruddin, Nazimuddin, Bazinjo, Wazir and two unknown culprits, duly armed with pistols, guns and lathies came  outside Polling Station G.P.S Saifuddin Jagirani and in prosecution of their common object, applicant/accused Mumtaz Ali made straight pistol shot at PW Imtiaz Ali with intention to commit his murder which hit him on right side of his chest and on resistance by PW Arbello, applicant/accused Iqrar made straight pistol shot at him/PW Arbello with intention to commit his murder which hit him on left side of his chest and he fell down raising cry, when PW Muhammad Moosa proceeded ahead to pick them up, in the meantime, co-accused Saifuddin, Meharuddin and Nooruddin caused gun butt blows to him which him on his head, left hand and right arm while the other peoples intervened and rescued them, for that the present case was registered against the accused.  

3.                 Heard learned counsel for the applicants/accused, learned counsel for the complainant, learned D.P.G for the State and perused the material made available on record with their able assistance. The former has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants/accused by repeating the same grounds of his bail application adding that the present applicants/accused have been victimized of the political rivalry while two latter(s) have flatly opposed the bail application on the grounds that the present applicants/accused are nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to both the injured on their vital part and there is no malafide on the part of complainant to implicate them in this case falsely, as such they do not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail.

4.                The careful assessment of the material brought on record is entailing that the present applicants/accused alongwith rest of the culprits, duly armed with deadly weapons, in prosecution of their common object, caused pistol shot injuries to both the injured on vital part of their bodies, the same on medical examination were opined by the medical officer to be “Jurh-e-Jaifah” falling under section 337-D PPC, which is not bailable and punishable upto ten years. Further, the version of the complainant is corroborated by the witnesses in their 161 Cr.PC statements. Moreover, the ocular version is fully consistent with medical account. No doubt, there is delay of one day in lodgment of the FIR but it is explained plausibly by the complainant, therefore, the same even otherwise could not be resolved in favour of the applicants/accused by this Court at this stage. The complainant and his witnesses may be related inter-se but their relationship is not enough to disbelieve them as they are appearing to be natural witnesses to the incident. Moreover, no any substance has been brought by the applicants/accused justifying their false implication in this case at the cost of political rivalry. In these circumstances, there appear sufficient grounds to believe that the applicants/accused are guilty of the offence for which they have been charged.

5.                In case of SHEQAB MUHAMMAD V. THE STATE AND OTHERS (2020 SCMR-1486), the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-

“3.  Arguments that ocular account stands contradicted by medical evidence and in the absence of an independent witness from the public, petitioner's general participation, resulting into an injury on a non-vital part of the body, particularly in the absence of repeated fire shot, squarely brings his case within the remit of further probe, are not only beside the mark but also cannot be attended without undertaking an in-depth analysis of the prosecution case, an exercise forbidden by law at bail stage. In a daylight affair, two persons sustained firearm injuries besides the one having endured violence through blunt means and as such requires no public support to drive home the charge; their statements supported by medical examinations of even date, cumulatively bring petitioner's case prima facie within the mischief of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, hit by statutory prohibition, in view whereof, he cannot be released on bail in the absence of any consideration within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code ibid. Similarly, murderous assault as defined in the section ibid draws no anatomical distinction between vital or non-vital parts of human body. Once the triggered is pressed and the victim is effectively targeted, "intention or knowledge" as contemplated by the section ibid is manifested; the course of a bullet is not controlled or steered by assailant's choice nor can he claim any premium for a poor marksmanship. Exercise of discretion by the High Court being well within the bounds of law calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined”. 

6.                In view of above, it is safely concluded that the applicants/accused have failed to make out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the instant bail application merits no consideration which is hereby dismissed accordingly.

7.                Needless to mention here that the observations recorded hereinabove is tentative in its nature and shall not prejudice the parties at trial.

 

JUDGE