ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. 370 of 2010.
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1. For orders on office objection.
2. For hearing.
09.06.2010.
Mr. Irshad Ali Chandio, Advocate for applicant.
Miss Rubina Dhamraho, State counsel.
~~~
Applicant Ghulam Hussain Khoso seeks bail in crime No.349/2009 P.S Mehar, registered under section 324, 337, 337-A (i), 147, 148, 149, 504 P.P.C.
Facts of prosecution case are that on 07.11.2009, the complainant Mashooque Ali lodged F.I.R with P.S Mehar, stating therein that he has merchant shop and also he is doing sale of easy load of mobile phones. On 06.11.2009, Ghulam Hussain came to his shop for getting easy load; complainant loaded easy load in his mobile phone and again he came back on the shop and disclosed that easy load ha not reached in his mobile phone, then accused Ghulam Hussain abused and threatened complainant that he will see him. On 07.03.2009, the complainant alongwith his father and brother was sitting at his shop, when at about 1.15 p.m. accused persons namely Ghulam Hussain (present applicant), Asghar, Gulab, Ghulam Nabi, Nadir, Ghulam Qadir, Saleh having weapons in their hands came there; applicant Ghulam Hussain abused and uttered harsh words that “you did not delivered easy load therefore we will murder you”, then accused Ghulam Hussain started straight fires from his gun upon complainant’s father Mohammad Uris with the intention to murder him, which hit him on his left leg and he while raising cry fell down. The other accused caused lathi and butt blows to Rashid Ali, the brother of complainant. The complainant party gave name of Almighty Allah to the accused and rescued themselves and the accused persons decamped. After departure of accused persons, complainant brought his injured father and brother to police station and lodged F.I.R.
After investigation police submitted charge sheet and at present case is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar. The applicant filed bail application before Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, which has b4een dismissed vide impugned order.
Heard Mr. Irshad Ali Chandio, learned counsel for the applicant, Miss Rubina Dhamrah, learned State counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated by the complainant; the prosecution story is false. He has further contended that the alleged fire hit to the injured on his leg, which is not a vital part of the body and there are no ingredients of section 324 P.P.C., as nowhere it is mentioned that the applicant repeat fire shot and there was no intention of Qatl-e-Amd of the complainant party. Learned counsel further argued that co-accused are on bail.
On the other hand learned State counsel vehemently opposed grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that the applicant is nominated with specific role in the F.I.R. the applicant has caused injuries to the father of the complainant and there was clear intention of the accused to commit murder of the injured, but due to intervention of the witnesses present at the spot, he could not succeed.
I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the relevant record available before me. It appears that the applicant at the time of incident was armed with gun and opened straight dire at father of the complainant Muhammad Uris, which hit him on his leg, and it was his luck that the fire did not hit on vital part of his body, otherwise the accused had fired directly with intention to murder him. Prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. have fully supported version of the complainant. The case of co-accused, who have been admitted to bail, is on different footings. The offence with which the applicant/accused has been charged falls within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., as such the applicant does not appear to be entitled for concession of bail. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is hereby dismissed as the same merits no consideration.
Judge