THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-182 of 2022

Applicant:            Khan Zado alias Khan Muhammad through Mr. Muhammad Shareef Ghanghro, Advocate.

Respondent:        The State

Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of hearing:  14.11.2022

Date of Order:     14.11.2022

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Khan Zado alias Khan Muhammad Dayo seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 25/2022, offence under Sections 114, 324, 148, 149, 337-H(ii) P.P.C of the Police Station Ratodero. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero vide Order dated 24.03.2022; hence he 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 not 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 applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that there is no bone fracture while receiving firearm injury. He submits that the applicant/accused is attending the Court and the offence with which the applicant accused is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, the applicant/accused is entitled for concession of bail.

4.                On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant accused and submits that the ingredients of Section 324 P.P.C are very much applicable in this case as the applicant/accused had fired upon injured Ghulam Nabi, resultantly he received firearm injury on his back side.

5.                Heard and perused. Admittedly, name of the applicant/accused is appeared in the F.I.R. with specific role of straight firing on the cousin of complainant injured Ghulam Nabi, which hit on his back side. After receiving injury he was shifted to the hospital.  The ocular evidence finds support from the medical evidence. The prosecution witnesses have also supported the version of the complainant. No ill-will or malafide has been pointed by the learned counsel for the applicant for false implication of the applicant in this case; as such Section 324 P.P.C is very much applicable in this case.  Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out the case for further investigation. Accordingly, instant Criminal Bail Application is dismissed having no merits.

6.                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