ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

Cr. Bail. Appl. No. S- 732 of 2009

 

DATE                                     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

                  

11.12.2009

 

Mr. Hidayatullah Abbasi Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh Asstt. P.G. for the State.

Mr. Amjad Ali Sahto Advocate for complainant.

           

                                                :::::

 

Ahmed Ali Shaikh J:             Through the instant application, applicant Khair Shah seeks post arrest bail in crime No.60/2009 of Police Station Sekhat for the offences punishable u/s 324, 147,148,149 and 506(ii) PPC.

 

2.         The applicant approached the trial court for bail but could not succeed.

 

3.         On 21.10.2009, one Allah Bux Shah set the law into motion through FIR registered at P.S. Sekhat stating therein that on 20.10.2009 in the morning hours, on the knock of the door, he and his nephew Muzafar Hussain Shah came out from the house and saw, each Khair Shah, Shamsul Haq Shah armed with pistols, whereas Muzamil Shah armed with rifle, Lutufullah Shah, Najeebullah Shah, Waliullah Shah and Shuhabuddin Shah armed with hatchets, standing there. Accused Khair Shah, with intention to commit murder, started firing which hit Muzafar Hussain Shah on knee of his leg; Shuhabubddin Shah and Najeebullah Shah caused sharp side hatchet blows on the head and other parts of the body of Muzafar Hussain Shah while other accused also fired but bullet hit the door. The complainant party raised cries which attracted Athar Hussain Shah and Azhar hussain @ Gada Hussain Shah, who arrived there, following which the accused while firing and abusing, left the scene. The complainant took the injured to Police Station wherefrom he obtained the letter for treatment, left him in the Hospital and came to P.S. for report.

 

4.         It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the injury attributed to the applicant falls u/s 337 F(i) PPC, which is non cognizable, bailable and punishable only for one year; the co-accused Shuhabuddin Shah has been granted bail by the trial court vide order dated 14.11.2009. The complainant party being empty handed was helpless and completely at the mercy of accused party but the applicant did not repeat the fire besides the alleged fire arm injury is on the non vital part of the body of injured; the applicant is of advance age and pensioner of Education Department; due to malafide on the part of complainant, the applicant and his four sons have been involved in this concocted case. In support of his conentions, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Muhammad Afsar Vs. The State (1994 SCMR 2051).

 

5.         Learned Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh assisted by Mr. Amjad Ali Sahto advocate for complainant vehemently opposed the bail application stating that the applicant is nominated in the FIR with an specific role, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.

6.         The injury allegedly attributed to the present applicant/accused is punishable for one year and bailable. Same is on non vital part of the injured/P.W. Muzafar Hussain Shah. Per prosecution, the applicant and others were armed with deadly weapons and the complainant and P.W. Muzafar Hussain Shah were empty handed and completely at the mercy of accused but it is not alleged that the applicant repeated the fire, which prima-facie shows that they had no intention to commit murder of complainant party, therefore, applicability of section 324 PPC requires further probe. No recovery has been effected from the applicant/accused. The applicant is an aged person and said to be pensioner of Education department. The malafide on the part of complainant is visible as applicant and his four sons have been implicated in this case. In the case of Muhammad Afsar (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court has admitted the applicant on bail as the injury received by victim was on his ankle which was not on the vital part of the body besides it was found to be simple one and it was observed that it is yet to be seen if the accused intended to kill the victim.

 

7.         For the foregoing reasons and dictum laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Afsar’s case, I am of the considered view that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the applicant guilty of the offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or 10 years but from the circumstances it appears that his case requires further inquiry and he is entitled for bail.

 

8.         Vide short order passed today in court, the applicant was granted bail on the aforesaid reasons.

 

This criminal Bail Application stands disposed of.

 

JUDGE

AKC