1. For orders on MA-390/2008.
2. For hearing.
18.3.2008.
Mr.Jhando Khan Jarwar for the applicant.
Mr.Habib-ur-Rahman Shaikh, A.A.G.
DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, J. The applicant has assailed the impugned order of the learned trial court dated 14.2.2008 whereby the bail was refused to the applicant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant along with other co-accused being armed with deadly weapons caused injuries to the complainant party, robbed Rs.40,000/-, motorcycle, licensed pistol and golden locket etc.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bail of the applicant was earlier dismissed by the learned trial court and subsequently dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1.8.2007 as the same was not pressed and the direction to the learned trial court was given to proceed with the trial without further loss of time. According to learned counsel charge has not been framed in this case as some of the accused are absconding. After the stipulated period he moved application before the learned trial court, which was also dismissed by impugned order. The learned counsel submits that prior to lodging F.I.R of this case, the applicant has lodged F.I.R No.28/2004 at PS Raza Goth, district Sukkur, against the complainant party in this case and against one Mullan Bago alias Bagh Ali s/o Mughal who has been shown as injured PW in the instant case i.e. F.I.R No.21/2005 lodged at PS, Baiji Sharif. He further submits that the present F.I.R is counter blast of the earlier F.I.R No.28/2004 filed by the applicant against the complainant party including the prosecution witnesses. He submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in order to pressurize him either to withdraw from the case earlier filed by him against the complainant party or to compound the said case. He further submits that there are no reasonable grounds to believe hat the applicant has committed a non bailable offence as alleged but there exist sufficient grounds for further enquiry entitling him for the grant of bail. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 5.8.2005 without trial, which amounts to punishment before judgment.
4. Learned A.A.G has not raised any objection for the grant of bail on the ground that the applicant has already filed a criminal case against the complainant party for murder of two persons who are shown prosecution witnesses in the present case.
5. In view of the above discussion, bail is granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.one lac and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
JUDGE
N.M.