ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-30   of  2012

Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-38  of  2012

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

19.04.2012.

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For hearing.

Mr. Safdar Ali G. Bhutto, advocate for applicants in both bail applications.

Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, advocate for the complainant in both bail applications.

Mr. Mus’ab Baleegh Dhamrah, State Counsel.

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

                   F.I.R No.346/2011 of Police Station Kamber was recorded on 06.12.2011, at 4.30 p.m., for an incident alleged to have occurred an hour earlier.  Complainant stated that on the fateful day he alongwith two others came to a ‘Dargah’, where a religions meeting was being held on 10^th of Moharram-ul-Haram and he and his companions performed guard duty.  At 3.30 p.m., ten persons, eight of them being present applicants, came there duly armed.  Abdul Qadir, applicant in criminal bail application No.S-30/2012 and Ahmed Khan, applicant No.1 in criminal bail application No.S-38/2012, on seeing the complainant are alleged to have opened fire, but the complainant managed to evade.  Thereafter, it is alleged that all the accused persons fired in the air so as to cause terror and panic and thereafter while resorting to aerial firing they managed to escape.

                   Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant No.6 in criminal bail application No.S-38/2012 is not even named in the F.I.R.  He submitted that no person has been injured.  His submission was that allegation against Ahmed Khan and Abdul Qadir is of ineffective firing, while allegation against others is of aerial firing.  Learned Counsel submitted that case has been challaned and the applicants are facing trial and are no longer required in connection with investigation.  He submitted that a Kalashnikov and a pistol have been recovered from applicants Ahmed Khan and Abdul Jabbar.  His last submission was that all the members of one and the same family have been involved.  He submitted that the incident had not occurred at all because of the fact that there were lacs of people and on the other hand not a single person has been injured. 

                   Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, learned Counsel for the complainant, submitted that originally F.I.R was recorded and offence under Section 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act was included.  However, the Anti-Terrorist Court, after coming to the conclusion that no terrorist act is made out, sent the case to the Sessions Judge.  Such order of Anti-Terrorism Court has been challenged in this Court, where miscellaneous application is still pending.  Learned Counsel submitted that F.I.R was lodged promptly with specific role of firing at a religious gathering.  He submitted that 10 empties of Kalashnikov and 06 empties of pistol have been recovered from the spot.  He submitted that the act is a very bad example of sectarian violence and causing of terrorism.

                   Mr. Mus’ab Baleegh Dhamrah, learned State Counsel, adopted the arguments of Mr. Ghouri.

                   I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel and have also gone through the record.

                   If shorn of religious aspect and the religious gathering, the case against the applicants is of ineffective firing in a case in which no one has been injured.  Whether they had intention to commit murder or not is something which, in such circumstances, can only be decided after recording of evidence and at conclusion of the trial.

                   It is stated to be a religious gathering where lacs of people were there and Mr. Bhutto argued, and in my opinion with some force, that not a single member of the gathering has been cited as a witness.  The incident as alleged in the F.I.R is that there were lacs of people and then there was aerial firing: no causing of panic amongst the crowd or any stampede thereof is alleged in the F.I.R.  All these factors make out a case for bail.  Consequently, these bail applications are allowed and bail granted to the applicant in criminal bail application No.S-30/2012 vide order dated 20.1.2012 is confirmed on the same terms and applicants in criminal bail application No.S-38/2012 are ordered to be admitted to bail upon their furnishing one solvent surety each for a sum of Rs.100,000/- each and P.R bonds for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

                                                                                                JUDGE

T.H. Qazi/*