ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

1^st Crl. B. ANo. S- 509 of 2017

DATE	ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1.For orders on office objection ‘A’

2.For Hearing of Bail Application

16.4.2016

Mrs. Najaf Shah, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, APG for the State.

Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate for the complainant.

---------

Amjad Ali Sahito, J.- Through the instant bail application, the applicant Sikandar Brohi has applied for bail in FIR No.14 of 2011 of Police Station Kakar, under sections 324, 452, 34, PPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.5.2011, complainant Shabir Ahmed lodged his F.I.R at Police Station Kakar, alleging therein that he and his brother Abdullah reside in one and same house. Murtaza Arain used to come into their house hence they have restrained him from coming into their house. On 25.5.2011, complainant, his brother Abdullah, Shafidullah and other inmates of the house were available in the house when at 1.00 a.m. of the night of 26.5.2011, they saw on bulb light accused Murtaza Arain and Sikandar both standing near their cots. They woke up and saw that accused made fires upon Abdullah @ Badar within intention to commit his murder, who fell down on the ground. Thereafter, after scaling the wall , the accused persons ran away. On cries and firearm reports, villagers came running. The complainant saw his brother Abdullah had sustained injuries on right side of shoulder and left side of ear and blood was oozing. He arranged for conveyance and brought the injured at Police Station. After obtaining letter for treatment, he brought his brother to Taluka Hospital KN Shah, from where injured was referred to Larkana Hospital. Consequently, the F.I.R of the incident was lodged as stated above.

3. It is contended by Mrs.Najaf Shah, learned counsel for the applicant that there is delay of two days in lodging of FIR without plausible explanation. It is further submitted that during the investigation, the applicant was released under section 497, Cr.P.C however he was joined as accused, therefore, the case is of two versions. Thus it is a case of further enquiry.

4. Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that delay in lodging FIR has been explained since the FIR. He further submitted that applicant has remained fugitive from the law and the Court hence he does not deserve leniency of bail.

5. Learned State counsel reiterated the arguments of learned Advocate for the complainant and further submitted that the applicant has been named in the F.I.R with specific role of causing injuries to the injured and the P.Ws have also fully implicated the applicant in their statements.

6. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, name of the applicant find place in the F.I.R however the injury attributed to the applicant carries punishment up to five years. As far as argument of learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant has remained fugitive from the law and the Court, therefore, the applicant loses some of his normal rights, suffice it to say that it is well settled principle of law that if the applicant is able to make out a case for bail, the abscondence will not come in his way. The offence with which the applicant has been charged does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C hence the bail is right and its refusal is an exception.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the case of the applicant has become one of further enquiry as covered by Subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, instant bail application is allowed. The applicant Sikandar son of Haji Khan Brohi is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

Judge

Abid H. Qazi/**