ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Bail  Appln.  No. S-299  of 2012.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

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

                                                2. For Hearing.

17.08.2012.

Mr. Ghulam Mehdi Sangi, advocate for applicant.

                        Miss Rubina Dhamrah, State Counsel.

                                                -.-.-.-.-.-

                        Applicant/accused Bakhshal son of Abdul Sattar seeks bail in Crime No.18/2012 registered against him on 27.4.2012 at Police Station Sijawal for offences punishable under section 324, 337-H(2), 148, 149, 114, 504, PPC.

                        The allegation against the present applicant/accused is that he caused firearm injury to PW Muhammad Panah at his leg.

                        Mr. Ghulam Mehdi Sangi, learned advocate for applicant/accused contended that PW Muhammad Panah has received firearm injury at his leg. As per medical certificate, the said injury has been declared as Jurh Mutalahimah. It is submitted that injury attributed to the applicant/accused is on non vital part of the body of the injured Muhammad Panah. Fire was not repeated by the applicant/accused. Applicant/accused had no intention to commit murder of the injured. Co-accused have been granted bail by the trial Court. Intention of the applicant/accused for the commission of the offence is yet to be determined at trial. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case of Meeran Bux versus the State and another reported in PLD 1989 Supreme Court 347.

                        Miss. Rubina Dhamrah learned State Counsel argued that name of the applicant/accused transpires in the FIR. Specific role has been assigned to the applicant/accused for causing firearm injury to PW Muhammad Panah at his leg. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application.

                        I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused for the reasons that injury attributed to applicant/accused is on lower part of the injured PW Muhammad Panah by gunshot and it was declared to be Jurh Mutalahimah. Fire was not repeated by applicant/accused though injured was at his mercy. Co-accused in the same case have already been granted bail by the trial Court vide order dated 25.5.2012. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Meeran Bux versus The State and another PLD 1989 Supreme Court 347. The operative part of this order is reproduced as below :

“3.  We have heard Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Advocate and Mr.Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the appellant fell within rule laid down in Murad Khan’s case(supra) for in the bail application the appellant has stated that he is a landlord and businessman and during the incident he was in Quetta on a business trip and that the police was trying to arrest him just to insult, humiliate and harass him.  He further pointed out that the complainant has involved all the male members of the family i.e., all the three brothers and their cousin in the case.

4. Apart from this we find that the Sessions Judge granted the pre-arrest bail to the appellant after considering the merits of the case inasmuch as he inter alia observed that the injury alleged to have been caused by the appellant to the leg of the deceased by gunshot was according to the postmortem note, neither fatal nor was caused on the vital part of the body and was declared to be simple and that it was a case of further inquiry so far as the appellant is concerned.”

            For my above stated reasons while respectfully relying upon the above cited authority, I hold that prima facie intention of the accused for commission of offence is yet to be determined at the trial and case against the applicant/accused requires further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, concession of bail is extended to the applicant/accused and he is granted bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

                        Needless to mention here that the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by observation made in this order while deciding the case of the applicant as the observation made hereinabove are tentative in nature.

Judge