THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
1st Criminal Bail No.S-332 of 2023
Applicants: 1. Gullan son of Imamuddin Rind.
2. Imamuddin son of Gullan Rind.
Through Mr. Noorullah Gulsher Khan Rind, Advocate.
Complainant: Muhammad Hanif, through Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate
Respondent: The State
Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Date of hearing: 03.08.2023
Date of Order: 03.08.2023
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicants/accused seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 201/2022, offence under Sections 324, 147, 148, 149, 114, 337-H(ii) P.P.C. of the Police Station Mehar. Prior to this, they filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of I-Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar vide order dated 08.02.2023; hence they filed instant Criminal Bail Application.
2. The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application and F.I.R., same could be gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Per learned counsel, the applicants/accused are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that the F.I.R. is delayed about 15 days without plausible explanation by the complainant and false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out. He further added that there is discrepancy in the medical report regarding examination of the injured. He also contended that role assigned against the applicant/accused Imamuddin is mere instigation, whereas role assigned against applicant/accused Gullan is of firing upon injured Abdul Jabbar and co-accused Nisar has also been assigned the role of firing upon the injured; as such this is the case of two versions. He further added that the case has been challaned and the accused are attending the Court regularly and they are no more required for further enquiry and it is yet to be determined by the trial Court whether they have committed the offence or not. Lastly, learned counsel prayed for grant of bail to the applicants/accused.
4. On the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor General and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicants/accused on the ground that they are nominated in the F.I.R with specific role of causing firearm injury to the injured.
5. Heard and perused. Admittedly, names of the applicants/accused have been appeared in the F.I.R., with specific role against applicant Gullan that he has fired from his pistol upon complainant’s brother Abdul Jabbar, who received the firearm injury on his left shoulder and after receiving firearm injury he was shifted to Taluka Hospital Mehar, after getting first aid treatment he was referred to Chandka Medical Hospital, Larkana, then injured due to severity of wound was shifted to Trauma Centre, Karachi and then shifted to a hospital at Hyderabad for further treatment and after getting treatment the injured recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C; he is present in Court now and fully support the version of the complainant that accused Gullan had made firearm injury to him. The ocular evidence finds support from the medical evidence. The prosecution witnesses also support the case of the prosecution. No malafide or ill will has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants against the complainant for falsely implicating the accused Gullan in this case. In view of above, learned counsel for the applicants has failed to make out case for grant of bail to the applicant Gullan. Resultantly the bail application to the extent of accused Gullan is dismissed; consequently, interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 21.06.2023 is hereby recalled. However, role against applicant/accused Imamuddin is of mere presence and instigation. It is the trial Court to see whether he has caused the offence or not and at bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made. There is no complaint that after grant of bail applicant/accused Imamuddin has misused the concession of bail. The challan has been submitted and he no more required for further investigation. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused has made out case for grant of bail to applicant Imamuddin under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C.
6. Accordingly, the bail application to the extent of accused Imamuddin is allowed, interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 21.06.2023 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and condition.
7. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of either party at trial.
J U D G E
Manzoor