ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.
1st Cr. Bail Appln. No.S- 577 of 2023.
Date of hearing Order with signature of Judge.
1.For orders on office objections as flag A.
2.For hearing of bail application.
Applicant: : Through Mr.Muhammad Nawaz Bangwar, Advocate
(Wali Dad Bajkani) a/w applicant.
The State : Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. P.G.
Complainant : Mr. Mujahid Ali Jatoi, Advocate a/w complainant. (Zafar Ali Bajkani)
Date of hearing : 23.11.2023.
O R D E R.
Through this application, applicant seeks his admission on pre arrest bail in Crime No.93 of 2023 of P.S B-Section Kandhkot for offences under Sections 324, 337-A(i), F(i), 147, 148, 149 PPC. Applicant filed anticipatory bail application before the Court of Sessions which subsequently was assigned to 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot in Cr.Bail Appln.No.335 of 2023 where after hearing the parties his request was turned down vide order dated 28.9.2023, hence this application has been maintained.
2. Since the facts of the prosecution case are already mentioned in the FIR as well as bail application and the order passed by trial Court, therefore, there is no need to reproduce the same.
3. Learned counsel submits that there is dispute between the parties over landed property. Besides, specific role of causing firearm injuries is assigned to co-accused Tillan, Khadim and Ghulam Shabir whereas applicant allegedly shown to be armed with gun and remaining accused had allegedly fired which hit to injured P.W Mohammad Alam, hence submits that role against applicant is of general nature and the injuries allegedly sustained by injured P.W Mohammad Alam are multiple which were sustained by him on different parts of his body. He further submits that case has been challaned and the applicant has joined trial proceedings which is now pending before the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, hence prays for confirmation of bail.
4. Learned Addl. P.G submits that applicant has been assigned general role, therefore, he has no objection for grant of bail. In support of his contention he has relied upon case of Saeedullah and 2 others v. The State (2023 SCMR 1397).
5. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail on the ground that applicant has been nominated in the FIR. Besides he has been assigned specific role, therefore, he is not entitled for the concession of bail. He, however, could not controvert that co-accused Karimdad, Shahmir and Rahib have already been granted bail, whereas no complaint with regard to misuse of the concession has been alleged against the applicant.
6. No doubt the applicant is nominated in the FIR alongwith gun however, the complainant has not specified any overt act or specific role against him which may impose burden upon the applicant and disentitle him to have concession of bail. All the sections applied in the FIR are bailable except Section 324 and 337-D PPC which are yet to be established by the prosecution after recording evidence of its witness.
7. In the circumstances and in view of admitted enmity existing between the parties over landed property, the basic ingredient for grant of pre arrest bail, as enshrined by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 S.C 427), are attracted in this case. Hence the applicant has made out a good prima facie case of further enquiry. Consequently instant bail application is hereby allowed. Interim bail granted to him on 10.10.2023. is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
JUDGE
shabir