IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Bail Application No. 2239 of 2023

APPLICANT : Muhammad Siddique

Through Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Kambhar

Advocate

RESPONDENT : The State

Through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan,

Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing : 07.11.2023

.-.-.-.-.-.

O R D E R

Omar Sial, J.: Mohammad Siddique has sought post-arrest bail in crime number 38 of 2021, registered under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149 and 504 P.P.C. at the Ladiun police station. The learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta, on 03.08.2023, dismissed the application filed earlier by the applicant.

2. Ghulam Qadir, on 26.11.2021, reported to the police that his son Ashraf fought with Sarang and that Sarang had threatened him with dire consequences. On 23.11.2021, Ashraf had gone to buy some things from a shop. Ghulam Qadir was already sitting at the shop with Siddique and Soomar. Six persons armed with hatchets came to the shop. All were identified and included the applicant. Two of the accused, Adam and Anwar, hit Ashraf on his head with their hatchets. The applicant hit Ashraf on his arm. Another son of the complainant, Chakar, was also hit by Gullu and Zafar on his head, but with the back side of their hatchets. A medical examination later would show that Ashraf died of the hits he took on his head. Chakar was hurt.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Prosecutor General. The complainant was present in person but did not wish to engage a counsel. My observations and findings are as follows.

4. The incident occurred on 23.11.2021 at 8:30 a.m. Ashraf expired on 25.11.2021, and it seems, based on a tentative assessment, that the police were not informed of the incident in the interim. It was after the post-mortem that the F.I.R. was registered on 26.11.2021. I am inclined to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt about whether the net was thrown wide. It also appears prima facie that the injury inflicted by the applicant on his arm, as alleged, was not a serious one, nor a life-taking one. It is the two hatchet blows that Ashraf took to his head that caused his death. According to the learned counsel, the applicant is a man of advanced age (65 years) who is also an infirm person. This aspect also tilts the balance for the grant of bail in his favour. Whether the applicant shared a common intention with the two accused whose acts allegedly took the life of a young man will be best judged by the learned trial court after it has had an opportunity to review the evidence produced.

5. Given the above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety of Rs. 200,000 and a P.R. Bond in the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

JUDGE