ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No.287 of 2010
|
DATE OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE |
FOR HEARING.
30.4.2010
Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Mahar advocate for applicant.
Mr. Syed Fida Hussain Shah, State Counsel.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Applicant Umar Din Bhangwar seeks bail in Crime No.36/2010 registered at Police Station A-Section Kandhkot for offence punishable under section 302, 324, 365, 511, 148, 149, 337-H(ii), 506/2, PPC. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot vide order dated 15.4.2010.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 03.2.2010 complainant along with his son Bashir Ahmed, and his cousin Hassan Ali, Qurban Ali and Mumtaz Ali were available near the house of Mushtaque Ahmed Bhangwar in Kandhkot town. They saw and identified accused every one Mushtaque with T.T pistol, Ali Nawaza, Ali Hassan, Khadim Hussain, Umar Din, Karamuddin with T.T pistol, Amanullah, Sabir Ali and Bagan also with T.T pistol and two unidentified persons armed with Klashnikovs came from their back side. While coming accused Ali Hassan, Khadim and Umardin tried to kidnap Bashir Ahmed, who resisted on which accused Mushtaque Ahmed fired with his T.T pistol at Bashir Ahmed which hit him on his waist and right side, accused Karamuddin fired with his T.T pistol at Bashir Ahmed which hit him on his back side head, the complainant party raised cries on which the other accused pointed out their weapons at them to keep quite. In the meanwhile passerby gathered at sot and accused while firing left scene of occurrence. The complainant saw that his son Bashir Ahmed died at spot, however Hassan Ali had sustained injuries on his head. The injured and dead body of deceased Bashir Ahmed was shifted to hospital, the complainant at Police Station and lodged such FIR.
Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Mahar learned counsel for the applicant has contended that though the FIR was lodged promptly but no specific role is attributed against the present applicant, only his presence is shown in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance on the cases of Muhammad versus The State 1998 SCMR 454, Muhammad Sadiq and another versus The State 1996 SCMR 1654 and Sono Ghanghro versus The State 2010 P.Cr.L.J 537.
On the other hand Mr. Syed Fida Hussain Shah learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed for grant of bail on the ground that FIR is lodged promptly.
I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and so also learned State Counsel and perused the material available on record.
Admittedly no specific role is attributed in the FIR against the present applicant. In the case of Muhammad (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court granted bail on the ground that accused had allegedly made an ineffective firing and no injury was attributed to him during the occurrence. In the case of Muhammad Sadiq (supra) the Honourable Supreme court granted bail observing as under :
“There is no injury by means of pistol and 7 mm rifle. The allegation of Lalkara against the petitioners is proverbial. Though the petitioners were stated to be armed with pistol and rifle, but they did not cause any injury to the complainant party. The petitioners are admitted to bail. They be released, if each of them furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi.”
Considering the citations/authorities relied upon by the learned counsel and taking guidelines from he above authorities of the Honourable Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that it is the case of further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Judge