O R D E R     S H E E T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No.168   of 2010

Date	Order with signature of the Judge

1. For orders on M.A No. 600/2010.

2. For Hearing.                                     

31.5.2010.

Mr. Safdar Ali G. Bhutto, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, State counsel.

                                    -----

            Applicant Abdul Sattar is facing trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot in Crime No. 63/2007 of Police Station, Sijawal registered for offence punishable under section 302, 148, 149, 114, 504, PPC.

            The case of prosecution is that on 10.10.2007 at 5.00 p.m. complainant along with son Abdul Wahab and brothers Dilmurad and Shahban were going to village Samadar Khan Sanani. At about 5-00 p.m. when they reached in abandoned village of Korkani near mosque of Hayat Shah graveyard, nine persons namely, Abdul Sattar armed with Klashnikov, Abdul Jabbar armed with gun, Ghulam Nabi armed with pistol, Abdul Shakoor armed with gun, Ghulam Murtaza armed with revolver,  Abdul Rahim empty handed, Fareed empty handed and two unidentified persons having pistol were standing there. Accused Abdul Sattar abused the complainant that murderous dispute is going on between them why they have come there. On the instigation of Abdul Raheem, all accused fired upon Abdul Wahab son of the complainant who received firearm injuries and all the accused ran away. The complainant went to police station and lodged the F.I.R.

            I have heard the learned counsel Mr. Safdar Ali Bhutto, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Naimatullah learned State counsel.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that seven persons have been attributed role of causing firearm injuries to deceased Abdul Wahab but deceased have received six injuries. It is yet to be determined that who caused fatal injury. Learned counsel has relied upon an unreported case Crl. Bail Application No.663/2009 (Siraj Ali v. The State) wherein this Court has granted bail under the same circumstances. He has further contended that no crime weapon was recovered from the possession of the applicant during investigation.

Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, vehemently opposed for grant of bail. He argued that the deceased have received six entry wound land all the injuries caused by firearm. The F.I.R is prompt and name of the applicant does appear in the F.I.R. He has further stated that from place of incident four empty bullets of Klashnikov, two empties of revolver and three empties of 30 bore pistol were recovered. He further argued that the specific role is assigned in the F.I.R against the present applicant that he along with others have fired upon deceased Abdul Wahab.

I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and the material available on record. The F.I.R is prompt and name of the applicant does appear in the F.I.R with specific role. The deceased has received six injuries and all the injuries in the postmortem are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. Deceased was armed with Klashnikov and empty bullets of Klashnikov were recovered from the place of incident during investigation. Medical evidence supports the ocular account and at this stage it cannot be said that the deceased has not received any injury at the hands of applicant. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that it is premature to determine that the fire shot of the applicant is not fatal for the murder of deceased Abdul Wahab at this stage. In the above circumstances, I see no merit in this bail application which is dismissed.

                                                                                                            Judge