ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
Cr.Misc.Appl.No.S- 101 of 2008
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
For hearing.
05.10.2010
Mr. Ghulamullah Chang, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, A.P.G for the State.
=
Learned counsel for applicant does not press this Criminal Miscellaneous Application which is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Tufail
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
Cr.Jail.Appeal.No.S- 24 of 2008
Cr.Appeal No.S- 25 of 2008
Cr. Appeal No.S- 30 of 2008
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
05.10.2010
Appellant Muhammad Anwar produced in custody in Cr.J.A.No.S-24/08.
M/s Noorul Haq Qureshi and Nazeer Ahmed Bhatti, Advocates for appellants in Cr.A.No.S-25/08.
Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, A.P.G for the State.
=
Since Mr. Ch: Aftab Ahmed Warraich, Advocate for appellant in Cr.A.No.S-30 of 2008 is called absent, the matter is adjourned to 20.10.2010.
JUDGE
Tufail
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
C.P.No.S- 527 of 2010
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
1. For orders on MA 5668/10.
2. For orders on MA 5669/10.
3. For Katcha Peshi.
05.10.2010
Mr. Ashok Kumar D. Lohana, Advocate a/w Petitioner.
=
1. Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. Per learned counsel, the Petitioner is sui-juris, has contracted marriage with Naveed s/o Muhammad Juman on her own accord and free will. The father of Petitioner is no more alive therefore, Respondents No.3 and 4 intended to give her hand to an old man in order to get money from him therefore, apprehending her life in danger, she left her house and contracted marriage with Naveed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed on record the copy of Nikahnama as well as free will. Per learned counsel, the Petitioner and her husband have been harassed and intimidated by Respondents.
In the first instance, issue notice to the Respondents as well as Additional A.G for 18.10.2010. Meanwhile, the Petitioner as well as her husband shall not be harassed in any manner.
JUDGE
Tufail
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S- 554 of 2010
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
For hearing.
05.10.2010
Mr. Ghulamullah Chang, Advocate for applicant.
Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G for the State.
=
Applicant Hidayatullah Rind seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.21 of 2010 of Police Station Khadhar, District Shaheed Benazirabad registered U/s 397 PPC.
The applicant approached the trial Court but his bail plea was turned down vide order dated 15.7.2010.
The facts of the prosecution case lodged by Complainant Sahto Khan Zardari are as follows:-
“Complaint is that on 26.3.2010 in the evening, I and my son Javed Ali, aged about 26/27 years went together to my brother in law Gullan Khan Jore at village Essa Keerio for some work. In the night, after taking meal, we were chit chatting and there was illness towards my house and from there, I received telephonic call, on which, we along with Saifal, the son of my brother in law left for the village on his motorcycle CD-70, Model 2010 of black colour. My son Javed Ali was driving the motorcycle and on 27.03.2010 at about 03.00 a.m, when we reached near Railway Crossing on the eastern bank path of Rohri Canal, suddenly six persons duly armed emerged from Eastern side and signaled us to stop. We on the motorcycle light identified them, who were each 1. Hidayatullah s/o Muhammad Ishaque Rind having rifle, 2. Imam Ali s/o Sono Jore having rifle, 3. Mukhtiar s/o not known, Mari having gun, 4. Pervez s/o not known, Mari having gun, 5. Imam Ali s/o Naseer Khan Rind, having gun and 6. one unknown having pistol, tried to snatch motorcycle from us but my son did not handover the motorcycle to them, meanwhile from those accused persons Hidayatullah Rind made straight fire of rifle on my son, which hit on his abdomen, who cried and fell down and the accused persons went away towards Eastern side. Due to firearm injury, the blood was oozing from my son, to whom, I and Saifal took and immediately brought him at Nawabshah Hospital for treatment and due to his operation, I remained busy there and yesterday informed you, the police through telephone and for obtaining medical treatment letter and I have the letter to M.O. I remained busy to look after my son. Today, I have left Saifal and other relatives to look after my son, appear and lodge the report that the above mentioned accused persons duly armed with weapons, attempted to snatch motorcycle from us and got injured my son Javed Ali. I and my witness have clearly seen the unknown accused and can identify him on seeing again. I am complainant, investigation may be done.”
Per learned counsel the FIR was lodged when the injured was already admitted in hospital; no empty was secured from the place of occurrence; medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular version as in the FIR it is alleged that applicant/accused was armed with rifle and caused the fire upon injured Javed Ali with rifle whereas medical certificate reveals that during the surgery a pellet was recovered from the body of Javed Ali; per learned counsel in view of inconsistency between the medical evidence and ocular version, the case of applicant requires further inquiry. It is urged with vehemence that co-accused have been granted bail by the trial Court therefore, applicant also deserves the concession of bail under rule of consistency. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as 1. Muhammad Daud and another Vs. The State and another (2008 SCMR 173), 2. Muhammad Azam Vs. The State (2008 SCMR 249), 3. Abdus Sattar and others Vs. The State (1982 SCMR 909), 4. Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi Vs. The State (1979 SCMR 9), 5. Muhammad Yousuf Vs. The State (2000 MLD 1697), 6. Muhammad Naseem alias Naseemo Vs. The State (1996 P.Cr.L.J 1302), 7. Abdul Qadir Vs. The State (2001 YLR 3291), 8. Abdul Jabbar alias Arbelo alias Mooso and another Vs. The State (2006 P.Cr.L.J 1033), 9. Nooruddin and another Vs. The State (2005 MLD 1267), Nazeer Vs. The State (2003 P.Cr.L.J 418), 10. Mithal Vs. The State (2005 P.Cr.L.J 630), 11. Buland Shah and another Vs. The State (2003 YLR 914) and Faiz Muhammad Vs. The State (2008 YLR 2023), respectively.
Conversely, learned D.P.G for the State vehemently opposed the bail plea of applicant on the ground that his name appears in the FIR with specific role and his case is not identical to that of co-accused who have been granted bail by the trial Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly name of applicant appears in the FIR without specific role. It was the applicant who caused fire arm injury to PW Javed Ali. So far the inconsistency in medical evidence and ocular version is concerned, same is not a good ground for bail as held by their lordships in the case of Abdul Hayee and two others Vs. The State, reported as 1996 SCMR 550. As far as the doctrine of consistency is concerned, admittedly no overt act is attributed to the co-accused whereas present applicant has caused fire arm injury to PW Javed Ali. Injured PW Javed Ali has also implicated the applicant/accused in his 161 Cr.P.C statement as well as PW Saifal. The final medical certificate has been issued in which the nature of injury has been shown as Jaifah for which punishment is provided U/s 337(d) i.e. 10 years. The applicant has caused fire arm injury to PW Javed Ali while committing the highway robbery, PWs have also supported the ocular version. So far as the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, same is not helpful to the case in hand as the facts of those cases are quite different and distinguishable.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that prima facie case exists against the applicant and bail application merits no consideration which is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within three months.
The observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party.
JUDGE
Tufail