ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

                                              Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S-   714    of    2012

DATE        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

17.10.2012.

Mr. Ahmed Ali Shaikh, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Shahzada Saleem Nahyoon, A.P.G for the State.

Complainant Ghulam Hussain present in person.

                                    =

            This Criminal Bail Application is arising out of a crime registered as Crime No.85 of 2012 P.S Chambar.

            Brief facts of the case are that one Ghulam Hussain who was a Rickshaw driver, purchased an agricultural land in Deh Kunnar Taluka Hyderabad near the houses of the applicant Muhammad Ramzan s/o Muhammad Umer and his relatives and they were annoyed regarding the purchase of land in question. The incident took place on 21.8.2012 at about 6-30 p.m, when complainant went to Tando Allahyar by plying his Chingchi Rickshaw and was returning to his village, when from the Banana crop at about 6-30 evening, one Shafi Muhammad s/o Muhammad Qasim Khoso with DBL gun from the Eastern side, Ramzan s/o Muhammad Umer Khoso (present applicant) with Kilashankov and third Mehboob s/o Muhammad Hassan with Pistol from the Western side emerged out and pointed their weapons upon the complainant. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that complainant raised cries which attracted his uncle Khawand Bakhsh and cousin Arab Hussain. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that accused persons in order to kill the complainant made straight firing upon him and the fire shot of Ramzan Khoso hit on thigh of right leg of the complainant and he fell down.

            The learned counsel for the applicant argued that all the three accused have been assigned role in the F.I.R. that they have made fires upon the complainant, however two were granted interim bail and confirmed by the trial Court. The role of present applicant is similar to that of other co-accused and it is yet to be seen that in fact it was the bullet of applicant which hit the complainant. He further submitted that applicant is behind the bar since last almost one and half month and even if the offence is proved, will entail conviction for not more than three years. He further submits that it is the case of further inquiry as the F.I.R. is delayed by 12 days and it is yet to seen at the trial as to whose bullet caused injury to the complainant. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied upon the cases reported as 1. 2010 P.Cr.L.J 379 Lahore, 2. 2011 P.Cr.L.J 1198 Lahore, 3. 2010 MLD 105 Karachi and 4. 2004 P.Cr.L.J 2034.

            On the other hand learned A.P.G who was present alongwith complainant argued that the delay has been explained as the complainant was taken to the hospital after he sustained injury at the hands of accused and thereafter F.I.R. was lodged on 2.9.2012 at 1400 hours hence the delay has been fully explained. It is further submitted that role of the applicant has been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. and it is different from the role of other co-accused.

            I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.G for the State and perused the material available on record.

            It appears that the F.I.R. has been delayed for 12 days and it has also been observed that complainant lodged F.I.R. mentioning therein that all the three accused persons in order to kill, made straight fires upon him and the fire of applicant Muhammad Ramzan hit at the thigh of his leg as such he fell down. The injury has been sustained at thigh which is not a vital part of the body and even if the offence is proved, would not entail conviction of more than three years and even it is yet to be seen as to whether it was the applicant whose fire caused injury to the complainant. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon the case reported as 2010 MLD 105 which supports the case of applicant. In fact in another case reported as 2011 P.Cr.L.J 1198, even one injury on the vital part of the body was attributed to one of the accused in the said case and there was no allegation of its repetition. It is also observed in the case in hand that after such firing, the complainant was also at the mercy of accused, however no further fires either were made nor alleged in the F.I.R.

            In view of above facts and circumstances, the applicant has made out a case of further inquiry and accordingly he is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Two lac fifty thousand) and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.             

                                                                                                            JUDGE                      

Tufail