IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail No.S-82 of 2022

Doso alias Dost Muhammad

V/S

The State

Applicant:                                 Through Mr. Shahbaz Ali M. Brohi,

Advocate

State:                                       Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo,

Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of Hearing:                        01.08.2022

Date of Decision:                       01.08.2022

O R D E R

Abdul Mobeen Lakho, J.- Applicant Doso alias Dost Muhammad son of Raheemdad Shar seeks Post Arrest Bail in Crime No.45  of 2021, registered under sections 302, 337-A(ii), 147, 148, 114, 504 P.P.C.at Police Station Raheemdad. Earlier his application seeking bail was dismissed by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge/Model Criminal Trial Court, Shikarpur vide Order dated 16.02.2022.

2.       A background to the case is that the aforementioned F.I.R. was registered on the complaint of Muhammad Ramzan on 22.12.2021 at 2100 hours alleging that there was dispute over matrimonial affairs with the accused party; on 21.12.2021, complainant alongwith his father and cousin were going towards Raheemdad, when they reached near village Badai Soomro, they saw accused Dosoo alias Dost Muhammad armed with hatchet, Gulo, Munir, Lalo, Ali Muhammad, Ali Bahar, Gulzar having lathis in their hands intercepted them, accused Gulo Shar instigated co-accused that Ali Gohar Shar and others are in their grip, therefore not to spare them.  On instigation accused Dosoo caused hatchet blow to father of the complainant who fell down. After getting treatment of father of the complainant, F.I.R. was lodged.

3.       Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant as he was not present at the scene of offence; that as per postmortem report the death is caused by cardiovascular failure and due to failure of liver that the deceased was hospitalized for about ten days and died due to loss of blood (chronic liver disease CLD) whereas the role of causing hatchet blow is assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R. He finally prayed that the applicant-accused may be enlarged on bail.

4.       Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that name of the present applicant-accused is mentioned in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing injury to the deceased and per postmortem report, the injury to the deceased was also caused by hard and blunt substance, which is rightly assigned to the present applicant-accused in the F.I.R. hence he prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

5.       I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the material available on record. Per postmortem report the death was caused by cardiovascular failure coupled with failure of liver, it is apparent from the record that the deceased was hospitalized for about ten days and died due to loss of blood as he was a known patient of chronic liver disease CLD and also a known patient of type-II diabetic when he was admitted to the hospital with bleeding mouth and rectum. One more aspect that needs consideration while exercising the discretion in this case for grant of bail is that the applicant has taken plea of alibi as he has shown himself to be present in trial court (Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur) in another matter on 21.12.2021, which is the date of incident and the learned counsel for the applicant has produced certain documents (case diaries) by way of statement showing the applicant present in the trial Court and at bail stage deeper appreciation is not permitted only tentative assessment is to be made. The plain reading of the challan based on the investigation also shows that the statement of independent persons from the locality were recorded and on the basis of those statements the name of the present accused was kept in column-II. The F.I.R. was lodged with delay of one day and ten hours without any plausible explanation by the complainant and it is admitted that there was previous hostility over matrimonial affairs, the applicant was attributed role of causing hatchet blow to the father of the complainant, but medicolegal report depicts that the death was occurred due to cardiovascular and liver failure, which fact cannot be decided at the bail stage as the deeper appreciation could not be considered at bail stage. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out his case for grant of bail.  Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousands only) and P.R.Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

6.       The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

JUDGE

Manzoor