IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-680 of 2024

Applicant	Barkat Ali Veesar
	Through Mr. Suhail Ahmed Veesar and Faiza Khursheed Chandio, advocates
Complainant	Muhammad Qasim Through Mr. Raja Ali Waqas Abro,
The State	Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General for the State
Date of hearing	26-02-2025
Date of order	28-02-2025

O R D E R

OMAR SIAL, J.- Barkat Ali seeks post-arrest bail in crime number 113 of 2024, registered under sections 324, 148, 149, 427, and 337-H(iii) P.P.C. at the Ratodero police station.

2.      The F.I.R. was registered on 04.07.2024 based on information provided by Muhammad Qasim. Qasim recorded that there was a tribal dispute between the Veesars and the Brohis and that each clan had registered several cases against the other. Earlier that day, Qasim, his brother Abdul Khalique, and his cousin Elahi Bux were riding a motorcycle when they were intercepted by eight persons, six of whom were identified, with the applicant being one of the identified men. One of the assailants, Bashir, fired and hit the motorcycle of the complainant party, while the other shot he fired struck the complainant on his leg. Another assailant, Jalil Ahmed, fired and hit the complainant on his arm. The assailants then left the scene.

3.      I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Prosecutor General. The learned counsel for the complainant assisted the latter. My observations and findings are as follows.

4.      Presence has been attributed to the applicant. No overt act has been attributed. It is co-accused Bashir and Jalil who allegedly shot and injured the complainant. No recovery has been made from the applicant. The only evidence against him is that the complainant has named him in the F.I.R. At this preliminary stage, throwing the net wide by the complainant, given the acrimonious relations between the parties, cannot be conclusively ruled out. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he will trouble the complainant. Abuse of the concession of bail may perhaps be justification for cancellation of bail, but bail cannot be denied on this presumption (and especially when the applicant has no crime record) when he has otherwise made a case for the grant of bail. There is no evidence at the moment to show that there was a prior meeting of the applicant’s mind with Bashir and Jalil, who were said to have shot at and injured the complainant. The case against the applicant is one of further inquiry.

5.      Given the above, the applicant is admitted to bail upon giving a surety of Rs. 100,000/- and a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the trial court's satisfaction. As regards the apprehension that the applicant will threaten the complainant, as a further condition of bail, the applicant is restrained from directly or indirectly contacting the complainant or his family. If the complainant provides evidence of such contact, the learned trial court shall cancel the concession being granted herein.

                                                                                    JUDGE