O R D E R     S H E E T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln.  No.21   of 2010

Date	Order with signature of the Judge

            1. For orders on office objection flag ‘A’

            2. For orders on M.A No.98/2010

3. For Hearing.                                             

03.03.2010

Mr. Faiz Muhammad Larik, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro, State counsel.

                                    ---------

            Applicant Ahmed Ali being aggrieved by the order of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, whereby his bail application was rejected by the learned trial Court. The applicant is facing trial in sessions case No.372/2008 before the learned trial Court which is outcome of crime No.29/2008 Police Station, Dakhan.

            Briefly facts leading to this application are that complainant Abdul Ghani lodged report with Police Station, Dakhan on 22.8.20008 at 0845 hours stating therein that he resides in village Hotani along with his brother namely Anwar Ali aged about 38/40 years who is tractor driver. On the fateful day he alongwith his brother Anwar Ali and his cousins Imam Din and Bashir had gone in company of his brother Anwar Ali on tractor for earning their livelihood. While they were proceeding from main road Shikarpur to Ratodero they were stopped near Lakhi Wah at about 8.15 a.m.  They noticed that two motorcycles came from eastern side and five persons were boarded on the motorcycles. They were Ghulam Abbas, Ahmed Ali with Klashnikovs, Din Muhammad, Aziz  Ahmed and Muhammad Ibrahim armed with TT Pistols and they have identified them. The culprits alighted from their motorcycles and challenged the complainant party and in the meanwhile accused Ghulam Abbas fired directly at Anwar Ali, brother of the complainant and so also accused Din Muhammad fired from his pistol upon Anwar Ali who fell down on the ground by raising cries. It is alleged that applicant Ahmed Ali directly fired at Imam Din which hit him on the right little finger. The complainant party raised cries of murder murder and all the accused went away along with their weapons. When the complainant noticed that his brother Anwar had received injuries and expired on the spot. He also noticed that Imam Din has received firearm injury on his right little finger. It is further stated that he arranged conveyance and with the help of p.ws he took the dead body of his brother Anwar and brought the same at police station along with injured Imam Din and lodged the F.I.R as stated above.

            The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the role assigned to the present applicant is that he has fired upon injured Imam Din who received firearm injury on his little finger but the medical certificate negated the version of the complainant. When the injured was examined by the Medical Officer, Basic Health Unit, Dakhan, the Medical Officer found that the alleged injured Imam Din has received injuries which are as under:-

“1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep on outer surface at middle pharanx of little finger (R) Hand.

2. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm muscle deep on outer surface on  anterior aspect at proximar pharanx (tip) of the little finger of (R) Hand”.

And he opined the injuries as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah falling under section 337-F(1) which is punishable for one year imprisonment.

            On the other hand, leaned State counsel Mr. Nisar Ahmed Abro, contended that this is a murder case. Name of the applicant Ahmed Ali appeared in the F.I.R with specific role hence he is not entitled for grant of bail.

            I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties advanced at the bar and perused the police papers of the case. It is admitted fact that the injured Imam Din when examined by the medical officer, there were two injuries caused by hard and blunt substance found by the medical officer.  When questioned the learned counsel for the State that medical officer has negated the version of the complainant for which he conceded that the medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular evidence. In the circumstances when the medical evidence is conflicting with the ocular evidence, the case of the present applicant calls for further enquiry as contemplated under section 497, (2) Cr.P.C  hence I allow the instant bail application and grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

                                                                                                            Judge

Abid Kazi/**