ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Cr. Bail Application No.S-107 of 2014.

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing.

31.03.2014.

Mr. Zafar Ali vighio, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, A.P.G.

MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, J.- The instant after arrest bail application has been filed against the order dated 17.01.2014, passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar, in Sessions Case No.306 of 2013 in respect of Crime No.57/2013, under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 PPC, registered at Police Station Sinjhoro, whereby the bail application filed on behalf of the present applicant has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.G. After hearing both the learned counsel, my observations are as follows:-

(i) The entire line of arguments adduced on behalf of the applicant is that the instant F.I.R. is a case of counter version and hence the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. In my view, such contention is not correct, as the instant F.I.R. was registered prior in time, wherein three persons of the complainant party had succumbed to the injuries caused allegedly by the present applicant. In so far as Crime No.58/2013 is concerned, which is being relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant as a counter version was lodged subsequently.

(ii) It is also an admitted fact that as per statements of prosecution witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., the present applicant was holding revolver, had fired and on such firing even his another accomplice / co-accused Niaz alias Niazoo alias Nachoo Rind had also received firearm injuries.

(iii) It has also been reported that on such firing collectively made by the accused and his accomplice three innocent persons were killed and it is an attempt of premeditated murder. As per police report three empties of 30-bore and 12 cartridges were also recovered; empties were of the revolver allegedly used by the present applicant. The autopsy report also corroborates the complainant’s case as well as the statements of prosecution witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C.

(iv) It is the case in which abduction of a lady was the motive and on resistance the incident of firing had happened, in which the present accused as well as other co-accused / accomplice collectively opened fire and there are specific allegations / attributions against the present applicant, as he was present as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses at the place of incident for which no plausible excuse or reason has been advanced that as to whether the accused was present at the place of incident or not.

(v) In so far as the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, needless to state that in criminal matters every case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and based on such facts and circumstances. The case law on the criminal side is developed and is always subject to the distinguishing facts of each case. Further the learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently relied upon the case with regard to the issue of counter version to which I do not agree as this case is not merely of a counter version in its peculiar facts and circumstances, hence all such case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable.

3. In view of hereinabove, I had dismissed the instant bail application filed on behalf of the present applicant by means of a short order dated 28.03.2014 and the above are the reasons in support of such short order. The above observations are tentative in nature and shall not cause prejudice to the merits of the case of any of the parties at the trial.

4. The above bail order has been passed by me in a format prescribed by the Honorable Supreme Court in its order dated 20.03.2014, passed in Criminal Petition No.203-L of 2014, whereby I have not reproduced the entire contents of the FIR as well as the details of the arguments so raised by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.P.G.

JUDGE