2002 PLP 610 (YLR)

Muhammad Anwar Durani for the Complainant. Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo for the State. Date of hearing: 6th July, 2001. By this order I propose to dispose of criminal bail application filed in respect of applicant Talib alias Attaullah in a case bearing crime F.I.R. No.22 of 2000, Police Station Sanjar Bhatti for an offence under sections 324, 504 and 34, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned trial Court vide order dated 21-5-2001. The prosecution story as enunciated in the F.I.R. is that on 3-9-2000 at 2-30 p.m. complainant Nasir Sajjad Brohi appeared at Sanjar Bhatti Police Station and lodged an F.I.R. alleging inter alia that on the same day at noon time as the complainant alongwith his brothers namely Muhammad Alain and Muhammad Khan were busy in taking care of the vegetables when cows cattle of Ali Hassan consisting 30/31 heads entered into the lands where the vegetables were raised. It is said that the said cattle was taken to the cattle pan at Sijawal and at about 1-00 p.m. when they reached in the open ground near the house of Sunnani's, it is said that Ali Hassan being armed with gun, Talib also been armed with gun, Gadda Hussain armed with hatchet and Miandad who was shown as lathi carrier, all Brohi by caste emerged there. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that they enquired from the complainant party that as to why and where they are taking their cattle on which it was replied that since that crop had been damaged, therefore, it is being taken to the cattle pan. It is alleged that at that juncture Ali Hassan fired from his gun at Muhammad Alain the brother of the complainant who fell down by raising cries. Accused Talib fired from his gun at complainant which he tried to escape but one of the pallets ultimately hit him on his chest. The complainant raised commotion and on commotion and fire-arm reports several persons of the vicinity came running and the accused thereafter looking at them, decamped from the scene of offence. The complainant thereafter approached the police station where he recorded the F.I.R. as above. After usual investigation, the applicant alongwith others was sent up to stand trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdad Kot. It has been contended by Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Gadda Hussain and Miandad were granted bail by the learned trial Court on 14-12-2000. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to F.I.R. the applicant was armed with gun and was alleged to have fired on the person of injured. Nasir Sajjad and one of the astray pallets hit injured Nasir Sajjad on left side of mid of chest, being wound of entry. According to the medical evidence the injury was further certified as punctured wound being 3/4 c.m. in diameter with regular and inverted margins. The nature of injury was referred to Medical Officer CMCHL for final opinion and on 2-5-2001 a letter was addressed to the Additional Sessions Judge Shahdadkot by a Police Surgeon CMC, Hospital Larkana being Letter No.CMCHL-S(MLC)/547 dated 27-4-2001 disclosing that the above said injured had not attended the casualty or X-Ray department so as to give final opinion regarding injured Nasir. Sajjad. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that since two co-accused namely Gadda Hussain and Miandad were granted bail by the learned trial Court and the case of the present applicant cannot be said as distinguishable excepting for a slight variation. It could be said much less a case of constructive liability in support of his contention he was referred to the case of Mumtaz Hussain and others v. The State (1996 SCMR 1125) and Amir Bux v. The State (1983 PCr.LJ 1558) and states that where the bail could be granted. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the name of the applicant appears in the F.I.R. according to which he was armed with a gun and specific role of causing fire-arm injury. is attributed to him. He has further contended that after the receipt of the injuries he was referred to the Medical Officer and the Certificate showing the description of the injury as mentioned in the letter dated 3-9-2000. It has also been contended by him that the injured had not appeared in the casualty department for the purpose of X-Ray in the Hospital. He ha relied upon Ghulam Nabi v. The State (1996 SCMR 1023), Muhammad Younus and another v. The State (1994 SCMR 700) Ranjho v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 674) and Mehtar v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 60) it support of the contention. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of The State has however, raised no objection for grant of bail. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced b the respective parties and came to the conclusion that though the name of the applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R., he was disclosed to be armed with a gun and was alleged to have fired causing an injury to injured Nasir Sajjad but the fact remains that the actual act of the applicant / accused has to be examined in the light of damage caused Adverting to the above aspect of the case it cannot be lost sight of that injured Nasir though had sustained one pallet wound and the nature of injury was certified as irregular with inverted margins but he failed to appeal in the casualty department for the purpose o further investigation or in the X-Ra, Department for further diagnosis. The law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant or by the learned counsel for the complainant has no relevancy on the fact and circumstances of the case in hand. It would suffice if the reference is made to the case of Meeran Bux v. The State reported in (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 347) in the cited case, it was held that the applicant being armed with fire-arm was alleged to have caused fire-arm injury on the leg of deceased and the medical evidence discloses that the injury sustained by him was simple in nature in the cited case, the interim bail before arrest was granted which later on was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. In view of the principle as laid down in the above a cited case, I am of the view that the applicant Talib alias Attaullah S/o Kamal Khan Brohi has been able to make out a case for bail, which accordingly is granted subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail was granted to the applicant by my short order dated 6-7-2001 and these are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./T-29/K Bail granted.