IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S-470 of 2024

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For orders on O/objection at flag-A.

2. For hearing of bail application.

Date of hearing 30.09.2024.

Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo, Advocate for applicant/accused.

Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, D.P.G for State.

***************

O R D E R

Through instant bail application, applicant Muhammad Saleh Bhangar seeks Post-arrest bail in Crime No.05/2023 Police Station, ‘F.M Narejo’ district, Khairpur for offence under Sections 324, 337H(ii), 148, 149 PPC. Earlier his bail application was declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khairpur vide order dated 27.06.2024.

Report submitted by the I.O, that the complainant in the matter could not be served as they have shifted from the place and in this regard photographs have also submitted in respect to their living quarters. Apparent proper attempt as possible have been made and as such further notice not found required show-cause that was not withdrawn on earlier date stands withdrawn today. In the said circumstances as required only learned Deputy Prosecutor General was heard.

Facts of the case are that complainant Shah Jehan lodged FIR on 01.05.2023 at 1900 hours alleging that dispute arose between complainant with Zulfiqar Bangar and others and they used to remain annoyed. On 01.05.2023 at evening time alongwith Farooque Ahmed and cousin Khalil Ahmed Bhangar were present outside of village there came Muhammad Saleh on motorcycle who made aerial firing with his pistol and fled away thereafter they went to their land and in the evening time when they were coming towards their houses five persons came from southern side identified to be Muhammad Sale, Zulfiqar Ali, Ghulam Mustafa, Younis @ Chango and Younis, when on the instigation of accused Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Sale and Zulfiqar Ali made fires from their pistols which hit Farooque Ahmed who raised cries and fell down on the ground. Complainant after obtaining letter referred the injured to hospital and then he lodged FIR at Police Station.

Learned counsel for applicant contends that the complainant and their witnesses are not coming forward before the learned trial Court and in this regard NBWs have also been issued however, they have been ineffective and unable to acquire the attendance. He further contends that initially medical Certificate based upon which he was not entertained earlier having since been challenged before the Medical Board on account of the alleged victim failing to appear before the Medical Board the medical certificate is has been suspended. It is further contended that the other witnesses as were available for proceeded before the trial Court were cross examined, however, the complainant failing to appear there is no probability of the applicant able to acquire conclusion on merits in near future.

Learned Deputy Prosecutor General however, contends that in case complainants are not coming forward the case is liable to be concluded as dormant as such applicant may approach the learned trial Court. In respect to the medical learned DPG relied upon 2021 SCMR 387 case of Muhammad Ejaz v. The State and another contending that the first Medical certificate is required to be considered wherein the final report was not considered on merits, however, in said case apparently both the reports were discussed and the victim was examined whereas in the present case victim has failed to effect appearance.

Undoubtedly, it is available for the learned trial Court to deal with the case by passing appropriate order the circumstances as may be so requiring however, for this Court only a tentative assessment is to be made under the applicable function. Prima facie for the alleged offence no one has bothered to pursue the same for which circumstances may be present but the same does not warrant a ground for indefinite postponement such being never the intent of law. I have called upon the learned Deputy Prosecutor General as to any recovery having been effected in the matter to which the answer came-out in negative. In the said circumstances, this bail application is allowed as the applicant is found to make out a case of further inquiry. Applicant is granted bail on submitting solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

Needless to mention here that observations made herein above are tentative in nature and trial Court may not be influenced of the same and decide the case on its merits.

Bail application stands allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

Ihsan/PS