ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-363     of  2012

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

13.3.2013.`

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For Hearing.

Mr. Ahmed Hussain Khoso, advocate for applicant/accused.

Miss Shazia Surahio, State Counsel.

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

                   Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that a general role has been prescribed against all 10 proposed accused and there is no specific allegation as far as the applicant is concerned.  At the moment, I am concerned only with the case of the applicant, for whom no specific role has been assigned. 

                   Learned Counsel has relied upon the case of Abdul Hameed v. Zahid Hussain reported in 2011 SCMR 606, in terms whereof it is observed that on the ground of counter-cases between the parties it is to be determined as to who is the aggressor and consequently the case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C requiring further enquiry.  Further that the place of incident of both the cases is also shown to be common.  The incident of both the F.I.Rs is of the same place, time and date.  Such point could only be thrashed out at the time of trial and presently no exception could be taken with regard to the said position.  Similarly, in the case of Yaroo v. The State reported in 2004 SCMR 864, it was observed that no injury whatsoever to the deceased had been attributed to the accused and accused was in jail for the last more than one year, which facts are similar to the case in hand.   Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of such facts converted the petition for leave to appeal and admitted the accused to bail.  Learned Counsel last but not the least has relied upon the case of Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq, reported in 1996 SCMR 1845, in terms whereof it is observed that the case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in the F.I.R and the other given in another F.I.R by the opposite party.   The contentions raising questions as to which version in the two F.I.Rs is correct and which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed against can be gone into and decided by the trial Court only after elaborate evaluation of the evidence recorded by it and not at the bail stage.  The facts of the present case are almost identical to the cases referred in the aforesaid judgments, as in the instant case also there are two counter versions and two different F.I.Rs of the same incident of the same time and date. 

                   Learned State Counsel has very boldly and courageously conceded that in such eventualities as in the present case the two counter-versions are there, it becomes a case of further enquiry. 

                   In view of such facts, the applicant is granted bail subject to 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.

                                                                                                JUDGE