ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S-688 of 2022

(Najaf Ali Gopang Vs. The State)

1. For Orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of Bail Application

O R D E R.

27-02-2023.

Mr. Ghulam Rasool Narejo, advocate for applicant.

Mr. Abdullah Mastoi, advocate for complainant.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy P.G for the State.

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common object, caused fire shot injury to Zahid Hussain at his left nipple with intention to commit his murder and then went away by making fires in air to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant on having been refused Pre-Arrest bail by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant Crl. Bail Application under Section 498-A Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant; it was night time incident, therefore, the identity of the applicant was doubtful; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with the delay of about 02 days and fire shot injury was not repeated. By contending so he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide.

4. Learned Deputy P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre arrest bail to the applicant/accused by contending that applicant has caused fire shot injury to PW Zahid Hussain on vital part of his body with intention to commit his murder as such he is not entitled to be admitted to pre arrest bail in absence of malafide. In support of their contention, they have relied upon case of Syed Hammad Raza Vs. The State and others (2022 SCMR 640).

5. Heard arguments and perused the record.

6. The applicant is named in the FIR with specific role of causing fire shot injury to PW Zahid Hussain with intention to commit his murder, it gone through his body. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party only for the reason that fire shot was not repeated. The delay of 02 days in lodgment of FIR is explained in FIR itself, same even otherwise could not be resolved at this stage by this Court. No issue of mistaken identity of the applicant is involved for the reason that both the parties were known to each other. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that applicant is guilty of the offence with which he is charged; consequently the instant bail application is dismissed.

Judge

Nasim/P.A.