2009 PLP 1144 (YLR)

SHAMSUDDIN HISBANI, J.

Through this Application, the bail on behalf of applicant Allah Dino, facing trial in Crime No.24 of 2004, Police Station Matli under sections 302 and 504, P.P.C. read with Section 34, P.P.C. pending trial before the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin, is being sought on various grounds.

2. Briefly, the facts as stated in the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Murad Khan at 1230 hours at Police Station Matli, are that he along with P.Ws. Raza Muhammad, Muhammad Ali and deceased Khuda Bux, had reached in front of United Bank Limited on Main Road, Matli when Applicant Allandino along with accused Ghulam Muhammad, armed with .12 bore Pistols and accused Khan and Muhammad Bux, armed with hatchets made murderous assault to kill Khuda Bux deceased. Applicant and co-accused Ghulam Muhammad had fired at deceased Khuda Bux while co-accused Muhammad Bux and Khan inflicted sharp side hatchet blows to the deceased, who fell down. Complainant party challenged them and accused Khan and applicant Allandino made their escape good. Co-accused Ghulam Muhammad along with pistol and Muhammad Bux with hatchet were apprehended at spot. Deceased Khuda Bux succumbed to his injuries at spot, who was removed to Taluka Hospital Matli.

3. I have heard Mr. Syed Madad Ali Shah, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mumtaz Alam Leghari, Advocate appearing for the State. The latter has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the death of the deceased was on account of injury sustained by him by sharp cutting weapon and the allegation against the applicant was that he and co-accused Ghulam Muhammad fired pistol shots at the deceased and none of the fire-arm injury was received on vital part of the body. The allegations against the applicant need further inquiry into his guilt the question of common intention is concerned, the same could only be determined at the trial. According to him, the possibility of false implication of the applicant in the case in hand cannot be overruled. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on case law Faraz Akram v. State (1999 SCMR 1360).

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that the name of the applicant transpires in the F.I.R. which was promptly lodged by the complainant and specific part of firing at the deceased has been assigned to the applicant. It was next contended by him, that the weapon, used by the applicant in commission of the crime was recovered by the Investigating Officer on his pointing.

6. In F.I.R. which was lodged by complainant within half an hour of the incident, reveals that the applicant Allandino and so also co-accused Ghulam Muhammad fired pistol shots at the deceased and the remaining co-accused inflicted hatchet injuries to him. The incident had taken place in Matli Town at 1200 hours, and co-accused Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Bux were apprehended at Vardat by police and the private persons present there. Applicant and so also the co-accused are alleged to have caused injuries to deceased Khuda Bux and applicant armed with pistol fired shot at him. The specific part has been assigned to the applicant in commission of the offence. With due respect, the facts of the case, referred by learned counsel for the applicant, are distinguishable than the case in hand. The crime weapon was recovered by police on pointing of applicant.

7. I am of the considered view that there appears reasonable ground to believe that the applicant is apparently associated with the commission of the crime, which does not entitle him for the benefit of bail. It is a settled principle of law that at bail stage the Court has only to see whether the accused was connected with the commission of crime or not. For that purpose, only tentative assessment of evidence is to be made and deeper appreciation is not called for. The sufficient material had been collected by police during investigation of the case, to connect the applicant with commission of the crime. I see no justification to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage of the case.

8. The bail application fails and is, therefore, accordingly, dismissed. H.B.T./A-28/K Bail refused.