ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr.   Bail  Appln.  No.S-463     of  2011.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

30.08.2011.

1. For orders on office objections.

2. For Hearing.

Mr. Akbar Ali H. Dahar, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, State Counsel.

                             --------------------

                   Applicant Muhammad Hayat alongwith others has been booked in crime No.24/2011 of Police Station Dhamrah, for offence under Sections 302, 324, PPC.

                   Contents of the prosecution case in nutshell are that on 23.5.2011, at 1.00 a.m., present applicant alongwith co-accused Moharram, Azizullah, Sahb, Deedar and four unidentified persons came at the Otaque of complainant.  Out of them, Moharram was armed with Kalashnikov, applicant Muhammad Hayat with rifle, Azizullah with pistol, Sahb, Deedar and unidentified persons were armed with guns.  On the instigation of accused Azizullah, co-accused Moharram opened fire with his Kalashnikov upon deceased Naimatullah, whereas present applicant alongwith co-accused also fired upon the complainant, but same proved ineffective.

                   Mr. Akbar Ali Dahar, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case.  Per learned Counsel, the only allegation against the present applicant is of ineffective firing.  He further submits that co-accused Sahb, Deedar and Azizullah have been let-of by the police, as their names have been placed in column No.2 of the challan and the case of the present applicant is on same footings.  He lastly contended that from the place of occurrence only one empty shell of Kalashnikov was recovered, which prima facie suggests that case of the applicant requires further enquiry.

                   Conversely, Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, learned State Counsel, opposed the bail application, on the ground that name of the applicant finds place in the F.I.R and during course of investigation rifle has been recovered from him.

                   Heard the learned Counsel and perused the record.

                    Admittedly, the name of present applicant transpires in the F.I.R, but the only allegation against him is of ineffective firing.  He has not caused any injury to the deceased or any of the P.Ws.  From the place of occurrence only one empty shell has been secured.  Apart from above, co-accused Sahb, Deedar and Azizullah were found innocent and their names have been placed in column No.2 of the challan, hence no sanctity can be attached to the prosecution version.  It is almost settled principle of law that question of sharing common intention can be determined at trial.

                   For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that case of the present applicant requires further enquiry, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or even for ten years.  Consequently, application is allowed.  Let the applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

                                                                                                JUDGE