ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Cr. Bail Application No.S-24/2025
________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE_________
01. For orders on office objections “A”.
02. For hearing of bail application.
05-05-2025
Mr. Saeed Ahmed Panhwar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
--------
1. The applicant/accused seeks post-arrest bail in crime No.420/2024 of PS Mehar, his bail application by the trial court was declined vide orders dated 03-01-2025.
2. Per prosecution story that the complainant is a shopkeeper, he sells vegetables. Few days prior to the incident the accused parked his bike in front of his shop, one cow damaged the bike on which the accused threatened to avenge complainant party. On 28-12-2024 complainant, his son Asad and one Muhammad Khan were present over vegetable shop when at about 10:30 a.m accused Hubdar @ Raja along with 02 other persons came over there on bike and took pistol and fired upon Asad, son of complainant, which hit him over right feet and to Muhammad Khan which hit him on right thigh. Accused also fired upon the complainant but it missed. The accused went away while abusing. The complainant removed injured Asad Ali and Muhammad Khan to hospital and after treatment he appeared at police station and registered the F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that there is enmity between the parties which stands admitted in the F.I.R. It is a day time incident which allegedly took place in the heart of city but none from the nearby shops or passersby have been cited as witnesses. per own saying of the complainant that soon after incident he appeared at police station and obtained letter for treatment but did not record his F.I.R. The alleged injuries are on non-vital part of the body and as per opinion of the medical officer fall within the definition of section 337-F(iii) PPC and are punishable up to 03 years. The intention to kill the injured is yet to be determined after recording of evidence during trial. After the arrest of accused no incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. Accused is in custody since last more than 04 months and there is no progress in the trial.
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General submits that the offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and it is a day time incident. The complainant has appeared at police station but did not record his F.I.R. on very day which was recorded on the next day. No recovery has been affected from the person of accused. Hence, case calls for further inquiry, therefore, he concedes to the grant of bail.
5. The complainant is present in person and submits that accused is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and he has apprehension to his life if accused is released on bail.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined record.
7. Admittedly the incident has taken place in the heart of city during day time but none from the public has been associated as witness and per own showing of the complainant there is enmity of injured witnesses and complainant with the accused. Soon after incident complainant appeared at police station along with the injured eyewitnesses but did not lodge the F.I.R. and simply obtained the letter for treatment. The injuries alleged against the accused are over feet and thigh which are non-vital part of the body and as per the opinion of medical officer are simple in nature. There is allegation of 03 fire shots against the accused but only one empty shell has been secured from the place of wardat. After his arrest the applicant has remained under police custody for the period of 14 days but no incriminating article was recovered from his possession. It is yet to be determined that accused had any intention to kill injured. The accused has remained in jail for the period of about 04 months without any progress in trial. The investigating officer present in the court even is unaware that when and how he secured the empties from the place of wardat. All the witnesses in the case are related inter se and there is not likelihood of tempering with the prosecution evidence. It is yet to be determined at the trial that the offence alleged falls within the definition of section 324 PPC or 337-F(iii) PPC.
8. In the given circumstances I am of the considered view that the case of applicant calls for further inquiry within the limb of definition of sub-section 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C and in such a situation the grant of bail becomes matter of right and not a concession. Accused is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
9. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and confined only for the purpose of decision on bail and no way shall affect merits of the case during trial. The trial court shall be at liberty to proceed against the accused u/s 497(5) Cr.P.C if he misuses the concession of bail in any manner without making reference to this court.
10. The bail application stands disposed of in above terms.
JUDGE
Asghar/P.A