ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

Cr.B.A.No.S-  577   of   2010

DATE                                     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing.

30.08.2010.

Mr. Noor Muhammad Rind, Advocate for applicant.

Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G for the State.

                                                =

            Through this application, the applicant seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.468 of 2009 of P.S Tando Adam registered U/s 302, 324, 34, 504 P.P.C.

            The bail plea of the applicant has been turned out by trial Court vide order dated 21.7.2010.

            According to prosecution case, on 31.12.2009 at 1700 hours while complainant Shahzado, his brother Ghulam, his nephew Gul Sindhar and Allah Jurio were available at their lands, accused Bhaloo armed with DBBL gun, Gaman armed with hatchet, Rab Dino armed with SBBL gun, Dodo armed with lathi and Bhaloo Abro came at the place of occurrence. Out of them accused Bhaloo made straight fire of his gun upon Gul Singhar who raised cries and fell down and subsequently succumbed to his injuries and died. Rab Dino caused gun shot injury to Ghulam, brother of the complainant which hit him under his ear. Due to firing and commotion people of the vicinity came running there and later on accused fled away.

            It is inter alia contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant party. Per learned counsel, it was co-accused Bhaloo who caused fire arm injuries to deceased Gul Singhar whereas the present applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased. It is urged with vehemence that only allegation against the present applicant is that he caused fire arm injury to injured Ghulam but same injuries have been declared as Shujjah-e- Khafifa which fall U/s 337-A(i) PPC and punishable upto two years and bailable. It is lastly contended that no recovery has been effected from the applicant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on the case of Attaullah and 03 others Vs. The State and others, reported in 1999 SCMR 1320.

            Conversely, learned D.P.G for the State though opposed the bail application of the applicant but did not dispute the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant. He, however, stated that name of the applicant appears in the FIR with specific role.

            Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

            Admittedly, it was co-accused Bhalloo who committed the murder of deceased Gul Singhar while causing him fire arm injury and the present applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased but he caused fire arm injuries to PW Ghulam. Per final medical certificate, same have been declared as Shujjah-e-Khafifa and fall U/s 337-A(i) PPC which is bailable. Moreover no recovery of any incriminating article has been effected from the present applicant. Upon a perusal of provisional medical certificate, it appears that date and time of arrival of PW Ghulam has been shown on 31.7.2009 at 1710 hours whereas the FIR was lodged on 31.12.2009 at 2030 hours which also creates some doubt. Keeping in view the facts that the applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased but caused simple injury to PW Ghulam and dictum laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in Attaullah’s case (Supra) where the applicants were granted bail by the trial Court on the ground that they did not cause any injury to the deceased but per prosecution case they caused simply injuries to PWs but subsequently bail was cancelled by High Court and later on the accused approached the Honourable Supreme Court and the bail order passed by trial Court was maintained by Honourable Supreme Court. Since the applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased and in absence of recovery and particularly in

the light of provisional medical certificate, in which arrival time of P.W Ghulam at hospital is mentioned at 1710 hours. The case of the applicant falls within the ambit of Sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C and requires further enquiry.    

            For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that applicant has successfully made out a case for bail. Consequently, I allow this application and admit the applicant on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two lac) with P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

JUDGE

Tufail