ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

HYDERABAD.

Cr.B. A. No. S – 729 of 2014.

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

29.12.2014.

FOR HEARING

Mr. Ghulamullah Chang, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, Asstt. P.G. for the State.

----

SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J: Through instant application applicant seeks post arrest bail in crime No.45 of 2013 Police Station Shaheed Fazil Rahu under section 324, 337-H(ii), 114, 147, 148, 149 PPC.

2. Precisely relevant fact for disposal of instant bail application are that applicant along with other accused persons armed with pistols waylaid the complainant party; on instigation of Haji Shireen present applicant caused fire shot upon injured Zahoor Elahi who received on his bally thereafter F.I.R. was lodged.

3. Learned counsel for applicant inter-alia contends that applicant has been implicated due to enmity; two accused named in F.I.R. were in jail at the time of offence in crime No.12 of 2013 Police Station Fort and they were released on bail on 30.04.2013 hence on this account this is a case of further inquiry; further he has emphasized that injured who was absconder in many cases was not arrested by the concerned police while referring him for medical examination thereafter injured also failed to appear before the Medical Board and such medical certificate is in abeyance; applicant is in jail since more than one year and delay is not on the part of applicant hence applicant is entitled for bail.

4. Learned A.P.G. extended his no objection on the plea that in F.I.R. two persons were also mentioned as accused who were not available at the time of incident and admittedly they were in jail thus this aspect of the case has made the case of further probe.

5. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.P.G. for State.

6. Perusal of record reflects that applicant / accused has been specifically alleged to have caused fire shot injury to injured Zahoor Elahi and seating of the such fire-shot injury is the ‘abdomen’ which is a vital part of the body. Such allegation also stood confirmed by the injured during his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus prima facie the applicant/accused appears to be linked with commission of the offence. With regard to allegation against the two co-accused persons who, per record, were in jail at time of incident, it would suffice to say this plea i.e of ‘alibi’ was / is not of the present applicant / accused but of those co-accused and they have already been granted bail by the trial Court in instant case. The specific allegation of causing effective fire arm injury was also not against such accused persons but is against the present applicant / accused, therefore, following the principle of examining each case within its own circumstances, the applicant / accused has to make out a case of further probe, per material against him. Candidly this is not the case of applicant with regard to plea of alibi and even otherwise it is settled proposition of law that plea of alibi cannot be considered on bail application. Without prejudice to above here the dispute is between two parties and many persons received injuries from both sides. Order of the trial Court reveals that witnesses are appearing before the trial Court and delay is not occasioned on the part of prosecution. The applicant/accused has failed to bring his case within meaning of Section 497(2) Cr.PC hence not entitled for bail. Consequently instant bail application is dismissed.

JUDGE