ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Cr. Bail Appl. No.D-39 of 2012

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

04.12.2012

Mr. Ashfaque Ali Khaskheli Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Baloch Advocate for complainant.

Syed Meeral Shah Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh

Applicants are booked in crime No.199/2012 registered at P.S. Qasimabad u/s 384, 511, 506(2), 337 H(ii), 147, 148, 149, PPC, 6 & 7 ATA dated 17.09.2012. In first place the applicants applied for bail before learned trial court, who has dismissed the bail application vide order dated 18.10.2012. After that, the applicants have approached this court.

Case of prosecution as set out in the F.I.R. is that the complainant is supervising the work of construction being carried out on plot No.125 Muslim Housing society Hyderabad and such property is owned by Shabir Ahmed Solangi. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that Shahmir Chandio, Asad Chandio and Zafar Chandio alongwith two unknown persons duly armed with weapons came at the plot and asked for Bhatta of Rs.200,000/. It is further alleged that Shahmir armed with Repeater, Asad and Zafar armed with pistols made firing to create terror. Thereafter matter was reported by the complainant to the owner of the pot and then F.I.R. was registered.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the name of applicants Ghulam Sarwar and Rasool Bux do not appear in the F.I.R. but they were taken into custody on the basis of identification parade held after 11 days of the occurrence. Learned counsel says that Ghulam Sarwar and Rasool Bux are brothers whereas applicant Zafar is son of accused Ghulam Sarwar. He says that no injury to any one has been caused and no recovery from applicants has been made. Learned counsel says that allegations against the applicants are general in nature and at the most, it is a case of ineffective firing. He further submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case due to filing of petition being C.P.No.D-629/2011 by the applicants side against owner of the plot. He has placed his reliance on the case of Muhammad Ayaz and others Vs. The Staten (2011 SCMR 769).

On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh has opposed the grant of bail and has submitted that all the P.Ws have supported the version of F.I.R. and applicants are fully connected with the commission of offence. He also submits that from place of occurrence four empties of repeater and six empties of 30 bore pistol have also been recovered by the police. He says that since the applicants are connected with heinous offence, they may not be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the complainant also vehemently opposed grant of bail and has submitted that if the applicants are released on bail, they may hurt the complainant side. He says that the applicants have not only demanded Bhatta from the complainant but they have committed such offence in the vicinity and they are known criminals. He also says that earlier applicants have claimed and received Bhatta from the complainant through cheque. He submits that the applicants are not entitled for bail in view of material available with the prosecution.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

An examination of F.I.R. would show that name of applicant Zafar appears in the F.I.R. alongwith Shahbir and Asad while name of applicants Ghulam Sarwar and Rasool Bux are not appearing in the F.I.R. Admittedly identification parade was held after 11 days of occurrence. It is also an admitted position that no injury has been caused by accused to any person and no recovery has been effect from the applicants/accused. The allegations against the applicants are general in nature and at the best, the case can be termed as of ineffective firing. The contention of applicant’s counsel that applicants have been booked in this case due to enmity and strained relationship due to filing of C.P.No.D-629/2011 before this court against the owner of the plot and at the behest of owner of the plot, present F.I.R. has been registered creates doubt in the prosecution case.

In the aforesaid circumstances, false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out. Thus in view of all aforesaid factors, case of the applicants requires further inquiry in terms of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The applicants are, therefore, admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this court.

The Cr. Bail Application stands disposed of.

JUDGE