ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 739 of 2016

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 806 of 2016

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 518 of 2018

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 529 of 2018

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application

28.09.2018

Mr. Mumtaz Ali Jehangir Lashari Advocate for the Applicants

Syed Sardar Ali Shah, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<

Through these separate bail applications, the applicants/accused Muhammad Javed, Dil Murad and Sabir Ali have sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No.174/2016 registered at police station Kotdiji, District Khairpur for an offences under Section 324, 337-H(ii) and 34 PPC.

The facts as per FIR registered by complainant Muhammad Ramzan Sanjrani at Police Station Kotdiji are that the he owned agricultural lands and accused Dil Murad Sanjrani was forcing him to sell the said land to him, but he refused. On the day of incident i.e. 21.06.2016, he along with his minor son Yaseen aged 8/9 years was sitting on Cots in the courtyard of his Otaq, electric bulbs were glowing, when at about 8:00 p.m there came accused Ali Murad with SBBL Gun, Javed with Pistol, Sabir with Gun and one unknown persons, with Pistol, if seen again would be identified. In the meanwhile accused Dil Murad challenged and said that why he did not accept his offer of sale of land and made direct fire of gun with intention of murder, as such he jumped down from the Cot while the fire hit his son Yaseen on his left leg foot ankle, who fell down and bleeding. Thereafter all the accused persons while making aerial firing escaped away. On the cries and firearm reports, his nephew Lal Dino and Malhar also came there, saw and identified the accused persons. Thereafter the injured Yaseen was removed to hospital and then the complainant went to P.S, hence such FIR was lodged.

Learned counsel submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant due to admitted enmity, whereas, as per FIR there is no independent eye-witness of the incident except the family of the complainant being his nephews; the firearm injury sustained by the injured Yaseen is on his left leg of foot ankle which is non-vital part. He further contends that as per FIR no specific overt act has been attributed to any of the applicants in the commission of the alleged offence and mere presence of the applicants have been shown at the place of incident; the alleged incident has taken place in the odd hours of the night, whereas, the source of identification has been shown on electric bulb light, which is a weak piece of evidence. He lastly contends that at the most the case of the applicants falls under the vicarious liability, which is yet to be proved after recording of evidence before the trial Court whether the applicants had participated in the alleged offence. He further submits that the case is pending trial and applicants are attending the trial Court regularly, hence the applicants are entitled for confirmation of their interim pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon the cases of Master Dur Muhammad v. The State (1994 P Cr. L J 1769); Muhammad Ramzan v. State (2001 P Cr. L J 1291); Ahmed Ali v. The State (2011 Y L R 1735); Rehmatullah and others v. The State (2012 Y L R 1557).

Learned DPG for State has opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants/accused on the ground that the present applicants have actively participated in the offence, whereas, special role of firing upon the injured is attributed to applicant Dil Murad, therefore, the interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier to the applicants be recalled. The complainant is present in person but could not produce his advocate, despite repeated chances provided to him, but he agrees after grant of bail to applicants, they did not misuse the concession of same.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned DPG for the State and have perused the record. Admittedly as per FIR the allegation against the present applicants is that they were armed with Guns and Pistols were available at the place of incident, but have caused no harm to anybody, except accused Dil Murad who has allegedly made fire upon the injured Yaseen which he has received on his foot ankle, which is a non-vital part of the body. The injury assigned to the applicant Dil Murad is on non-vital part of the body of the injured. The accused did not repeat fire upon the complainant or injured, therefore, applicability of Section 324 PPC would be determined at the time of trial. The injury of injured Yaseen, which has been assigned to the applicant Dil Murad does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The case has been challaned and the applicants are attending regularly whereas, as per the counsel for the applicants that the trial is not commenced due to adjournments moved on behalf of the complainant. In view of the above circumstances, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants on 27.12.2016, 11.09.2018 and 14.09.2018 are hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. The applicants/accused are directed to attend the trial Court regularly, if the applicants fail to appear before the trial Court, the trial Court would be at liberty to take action against the applicants and their surety in accordance with law. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. The notice under Section 514 Cr.P.C issued to the surety in Criminal Bail Application No.S-739/2016 is also recalled. The above observations are tentative in nature and will not affect the case of either party at the time of trial. The bail applications stand disposed of.

Judge

ARBROHI