ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
Cr.B.A.No.S- 613 of 2010
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
For hearing.
29.10.2010
Syed Ghulam Hyder Shah, Advocate for applicant.
Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G for the State.
=
Applicant Lakhmoo Bheel seeks bail in Crime No. 75 of 2010 P.S Khipro for offence U/s 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 34 PPC.
The applicant approached the trial Court but his bail plea was turned down vide order dated 06.8.2010.
On 17.4.2010 complainant Muhammad s/o Jan Muhammad Rajar lodged the report which reads as under:-
“Complaint is that I use to reside on the above given address and my sons namely Ramzan, Hamid and Jan Muhammad are also residing with me. My son Ramzan who is doing labour and today at morning time my son Ramzan has proceeded on his Motorcycle towards Khipro town and behind him I alongwith relative Uris also went for some personal work towards Khipro town and when we reached at graveyard “Shrine” near “Kaitee Forest” Ladho Minor, we heard cries from Western side of my son Ramzan and as such I stopped the Motrocycle and rushed there inside the forest. At about 1600 hours we saw namely Lakhmoon Bheel duly armed with hatchet, Ramchand Kolhi armed with hatchet, Sukhio Kolhi armed with lathi and another unknown person duly armed with lathi and they were inflicting hatchets blows to my son, while accused Sukhio alongwith another unknown person were inflicting lathi blows to my son on his head, legs and other parts of his body, while my son was fell down. We made hakals and intervened, whereafter all accused escaped away with their hatchets and lathies towards Western side. Thereafter, we saw my son had received injuries on his head and he has received sharp edges on his legs and other parts of his body. In the meantime namely Ali Bux, Qazi Soomar and Khair Muhammad Rajar, arrived there and they also found to my son and I narrated them the above facts. After arranging convince, we brought the injured at Taluka Hospital Khipro and after obtaining letter from police station and providing first add, my injured son Ramzan was referred to L.U.M.H.S Hyderabad. Now I am complaining that above named accused in furtherance f their common intention accused Lakhmoon Bheel and Ramchand Kolhi have inflicted hatchet blows to my son Ramzan on his head, while unknown person and accused Sukhio Kolhi have inflicted lathi blows to my son on his legs and other parts of his body and they aused him serious injuries. We saw unknown person and can identify him on seeing again. I am complainant and investigation be done.”
It is inter alia contended that the applicant is innocent and case is false and concocted one; case of the applicant requires further inquiry as no specific role has been attributed to the applicant; there are general allegations against the applicant and co-accused Ramchand; it is yet to be determined at the trial as to whether injured Ramzan has received injuries at the hands of present applicant; the prosecution version seems to be cock and bull story as in the FIR it is alleged that applicant and co-accused allegedly caused sharp side edge of hatchet but there was no sign of blood oozing from the head or other parts of the body of the injured therefore, case of the applicant requires further inquiry. It is lastly contended that Section 337-A(i) and 337-F(i) are bailable whereas Section 324 PPC has been malafidely applied. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases reported as Allah Bux Vs. The State (2005 P.Cr.L.J), Saleem Khan Vs. The State (1999 P.Cr.L.J 140) and Abdul Sattar Vs. The State (1995 P.Cr.L.J 639), respectively.
On the other hand, learned counsel D.P.G for the State opposed the bail plea of the applicant on the ground that his name appears in the FIR and he was armed with hatchet and caused sharp side of hatchet injuries to victim Ramzan.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly the name of the applicant appears in the FIR, he was armed with hatchet and it is alleged that he and co-accused Ramchand Kolhi caused hatchet injuries to injured Ramzan at his head which is vital part of the body while co-accused Sukhio and one unknown accused who were said to be armed with lathies, caused him lathi blows at his head, legs and other parts of the body. PW/Injured Ramzan in his 161 Cr.P.C statement has supported the contents of FIR which is further corroborated by medical evidence. Though injuries No.1 and 2 have been declared as Shujjah-i-Khafifah whereas injury No.3 has been declared as Ghair Jaifah Munaqillah, fall U/s 337-F(vi) PPC which is punishable for 10 years. Moreover, with profound respect, the law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is quite distinguishable and not helpful to the case in hand.
In the case of Allah Bux (Supra), the accused was granted bail as no specific role was assigned to him except general allegation.
In the case of Saleem Khan (Supra), the accused were granted bail as injuries on the person of injured were on non-vital part of the body.
In the case of Abdul Sattar (Supra), the accused was granted bail on the ground that offence allegedly committed by him did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that there is sufficient material against the applicant connecting him with the above offence therefore, at this stage, he does not deserve the concession of bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed.
The above are the reasons of my short order dated 29.10.2010.
JUDGE
Tufail