ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln.  No. 645 of 2011.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

                                    1. For orders on office objection as Flag ‘A’.

                                    2. For orders on Ref./Letter of Mukhtiarkar flag ‘B’.

                                    3. For Hearing.

25.07.2012.

            `           Mr. Rafique Ahmed Abro advocate for applicants along with applicants.

                        Mr. Mubshar Ali Solangi, advocate for complainant.

                        Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahiyo, State Counsel.

                                                -.-.-.-.-.-.-

NAIMTULLAH PHULPOTO, J- Applicants Nazir Hussain, Ghulam Murtaza and Ahmed Sultan moved pre arrest bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Larkana in Crime No.135/2011 for offences punishable under sections 324, 337-H(2), 337-A(i), F(i), 504, 148, 149, PPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines Larkana. Application was declined vide order dated 12.12.2011. Thereafter applicants/accused approached to this Court.

            Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 13.11.2011, one Muneer Ahmed lodged FIR  alleging therein that one Vocational School has been opened in their Muhalla, where one Sanaullah was working as peon who used to sit in front of the houses of complainant out side the School. It is stated that complainant objected and there had been altercation between them a few days before the incident. Further it is alleged that on 13.11.2011, while complainant, his brother Imdad and cousins Asadullah and Amir were present out side their houses, where it is alleged that accused Nazeer Ahmed armed with repeater, Sultan and Murtaza armed with pistols along with five other persons came there. It is stated in the FIR that accused Nazeer hurled abuses then all the accused caused Butt blows to witnesses. Accused opened fires which hit one Muhammad Ali Mastoi who was sitting at the Hotel near the place of incident. Thereafter, all the accused went away while making aerial firing. FIR of the incident was lodged under the above sections.

                        Mr. Rafique Ahmed Abro, learned advocate for applicants/accused contended that this is a case of counter version. Accused persons have also lodged FIR against the complainant party bearing Crime No.137/2011 for offence punishable under sections 324, 337-H(2), 506(2), 504, 148, 149, PPC registered at Police Station Civil Line Larkana. It is further contended that injuries sustained by PW Muhammad Ali have been caused by hard blunt substance, as such medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular evidence and malafide is apparent on the record. Injuries sustained by accused have been suppressed. Lastly it is submitted that in the counter case lodged by the accused persons pre arrest bail has been granted by the learned Sessions Judge, while applicants/accused have been refused the same concession. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Abdul Hameed versus Zahid Hussain alias Papu SBLR 2012 SC 129.             Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahiyo, learned State Counsel conceded to the contention raised by the learned defence counsel and recorded no objection.

                        Mr. Mubshar Ali Solangi, learned advocate for complainant submitted that in case interim pre arrest bail is confirmed to the accused persons, then directions may be issued to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of this case.

                        This is a case of counter version. Medical evidence is apparently contradictory to the ocular evidence. In the counter case lodged by accused persons pre arrest bail has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Present applicants/accused deserve same treatment in the law. Therefore, serious malafide has been alleged against the complainant and police. Injuries suffered by accused have not been disclosed by complainant.  Therefore, yet it is to be determined which party is aggressor. Learned State Counsel has also recorded no objection. Hence, for the above stated reasons and while respectfully relying upon the above cited authority of Honourable Supreme Court, interim pre arrest bail already granted is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The trial Court is directed to decide both the counter cases within three months under intimation to this Court.

Judge

Yousuf Panhwar