ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-110 of 2024

(Mujahid Hussain Buriro Vs. The State)

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For the hearing of the bail application.

26.07.2024.

Mr.Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State.

  -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with the rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of its common object, fired and injured PWs Ali, Zahid, and Muharram, intending to commit their murder and then went away by insulting complainant Nabeel and by making fires in the air to create harassment, for which the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thull, has sought the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 497 Cr. PC.

3.        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant to satisfy his dispute with him over a house; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with a delay of about three days and the applicant is in custody since 11 months, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the case of Jamaluddin and another Vs. The State          (2023 SCMR-1243).

4.        Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to the release of the applicant on bail by contending that the applicant is alleged to have caused two fire-shot injuries to PW Ali on his legs and on arrest from him has also been secured the crime weapon.

5.        Heard arguments and perused the record.

6.        Initially, the incident was recorded in Roznamcha under entry No.15, dated 23.07.2023 of P.S Mirpur Buriro; it does not contain the name of any of the culprit involved in the incident; subsequently on 26.07.2023 the complainant lodged FIR of the incident, it was with a delay of about three days. No plausible explanation for such delay is offered by the complainant; therefore, it could not be overlooked. As per FIR, the role attributed to the applicant in the commission of the incident is only to the extent of causing fire-shot injury to PW Ali on his left thigh; it is on non vital part of his body. Even otherwise, the injury outcome of such fire as per medical opinion constitutes an offence punishable u/s.337-F(iii) PPC, it is not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. The parties are disputed over the possession of the house. Co-accused Khadim Hussain has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court. The case has finally been challaned and there is no likelihood of absconsion or tampering with the evidence on the part of the applicant. In these circumstances, the applicant could hardly be denied concession of bail on the point of recovery of the crime weapon alone, when it is alleged to have been foisted upon him by the police at the instance of the complainant party. Indeed, the case of the applicant is calling for further inquiry.

7.        Consequent to the above discussion, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 

8.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE