ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
Criminal Bail Application No.D-38/2010.
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
1. FOR ORDER ON MA NO.3401/10.
2. FOR ORDER ON MA NO.3402/10.
3. FOR HEARING.
14-10-2010.
Mr. Muhammad Hashim Leghari, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G Sindh for the State.
>>>>><<<<<
Through this application, applicants seek post arrest bail in crime No.67 of 2010 of PS Digri, for offence under sections 324, 452, 337-H(ii), 504, 34 PPC R/W/S 6/7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. The applicants approached the trial Court but their bail plea was turned down vide order dated 19-08-2010.
3. Contents of the prosecution case in nutshell are that on 07-05-2010 at 1230 hours Dr. Ehtsham-ul-Haq lodged the report at Police Station Digri stating therein that on 05-05-2010 while he and Lady Dr. Rasheed Akhtar were on their duty, at about 11-00 P.M he heard commotion from ladies wing, following which he proceeded there and found accused Qadir Bux alias Qadro Noohani and Dur Muhammad alias Duri Noohani, both armed with Pistols were abusing Dr. Rasheed Akhtar. He tried to restrain them on which they became annoyed, however, after exchanging hot words accused Qadir Bux alias Qadro Noohani made straight fire upon him with intention to commit his murder but same proved ineffective, meanwhile Dr. Athar and other staff members came there, following which accused after firing in air gone away by a motorcycle.
4. It is interalia contended that the applicants are innocent and have nothing to do with the alleged offence; prosecution story is false, fabricated and un-believable. Per learned counsel the applicants have been implicated in this case because of exchange of harsh words between the complainant and applicants on account of dispute over treatment of a relative of the applicants. It is urged that the provisions of sections 6 & 7 of ATA 1997 are not applicable in view of the contents of F.I.R as well as statements of P.Ws. He lastly contended that case of the applicants requires further inquiry.
5. Conversely Mr. Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G Sindh for the State vehemently opposed the bail plea of the applicants on the grounds that their names do transpire in the F.I.R. Both were armed with Pistols and made attempt to commit the murder of complainant.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Admittedly this is a case of ineffective firing, neither the complainant nor any of the P.Ws has received a scratch. The prosecution story seems to be against normal human conduct. So far the applicability of sections 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is concerned, it requires further probe as the ingredients of the aforesaid sections are missing in the case in hand. Even from the contents F.I.R it appears that there was exchange of harsh words between the complainant and the applicants besides it is alleged that applicants have abused. P.W Lady Dr. Rasheed Akhtar. There is another aspect of the case as the alleged incident took place on 05-05-2010 whereas the FIR was lodged on 07-05-2010 after delay of two days but no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution in this regard.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants have committed an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years. On the contrary there are sufficient grounds to believe that their case require further probe as contemplated under subsection 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently we allow this bail application and admit the applicants on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (one hundred thousands only) each and P.R Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.
9. Bail application along with listed applications stand disposed of.
JUDGE
JUDGE
A.C