IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-42 of 2023
Applicant |
|
Ali Hassan Samejo |
|
|
Through M/s Safdar Ali G. Bhutto and Mushtaque Ali Langah, advocates |
|
|
|
Complainant |
|
Balouch Samejo |
|
|
Through Mr. Nisar Ahmed A. Soomro, advocate |
|
|
|
State |
|
Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State
|
Date of hearing |
|
09-03-2023 |
Date of order |
|
09-03-2023 |
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through instant criminal bail application, the applicant/accused Ali Hassan Samejo seeks post arrest-bail in Crime No.18/2022, registered at Police Station Mirani @ Badani, District Kashmore @ Kandhkot, for the offence U/S 302, 324, 506/2, 114, 148, 149 P.P.C, after rejection of his bail plea by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore vide order dated 16.01.2023.
2. The facts of the incident are mentioned in the memo of bail application and the copy of F.I.R. is also attached with the bail application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same here.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that there is delay of one day in registration of F.I.R, which has not been explained properly and there are allegations for causing injury to P.W Barkat against three accused persons viz. Narook, who fired with his Kalashnikov upon injured Barkat, which hit on his left side thigh and accused Sajjan caused fire straight with his Kalashnikov upon Barkat Ali which hit him on his knee joint of his right side leg, whereas it is alleged that present applicant/accused Ali Hassan has caused fire arm injury to P.W Barkat Ali which hit him below the knee joint of right side leg. Learned counsel submits that such injury does not reflect from the medical certificate. He next contended that during investigation, the applicant/accused was found innocent and his name was placed in column No.2, however, the Magistrate did not agree with the opinion of I.O and took cognizance of the offence. He prayed that this is case of further inquiry, therefore, the applicant/accused be released on post-arrest bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned D.P.G. have opposed the grant of post-arrest bail and submit that applicant is nominated in F.I.R with specific role of causing fire arm injury on P.W Barkat. According to them, medical evidence is supportive to the ocular account and the delay has been explained by the complainant properly; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, case is fresh one and ripe for trial, therefore, applicant/accused is not entitled for grant of post-arrest bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned D.P.G. and perused the material available on the record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly there is a role against the applicant/accused for causing gun fire shot upon P.W Barkat at right side below knee joint. Perusal of the medical certificate reflects that injured Barkat Ali suffered following injuries:-
1. L.P.W 1 c.m x 1 c.m tissue deep on left thigh posteriorly margin inserted (wound of entrance).
2. L.P.W 2½ c.m x 2½ c.m tissue deep on left thigh anteriorly margins exerted (wound of exit to injury No.1.
3. L.P.W 4 c.m x 16 c.m tissue deep edges disturbed on right knee joint medially, involving lower part of thigh (wound of entrance as well as exit).
7. When the injuries are matching with the role mentioned in the F.I.R and 161 Cr.P.C statements, the injury attributed to applicant/accused Ali Hassan is not found.
8. It is well settled law that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage and the only material is to be assessed tentatively. While considering the facts and circumstances of the case tentatively, applicant/accused has made out case for further inquiry entitling him for grant of post-arrest bail. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application is allowed. The applicant/accused is admitted on post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two lac only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
9. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned trial court while deciding the case of either party at trial.
J U D G E
Abdul Salam/P.A