2011 PLP 1917 (MLD)

GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, J.

This application is filed for release of the applicants on bail. The facts of the case are that on 7-2-2011 Azizullah lodged F.I.R. stating therein that on 6-2-2011, he along with his brother Sanaullah aged about 28 years, their maternal cousin Mumtaz Ali and cousin Hafeezullah went to Shikarpur on their Datsun pick-up driven by Sanaullah. About 8-15 p.m., while they were returning to their village, reached at Raheem Abad, saw six persons armed with weapons came on the road. They were identified as Shahmeer armed with K.K, Shahzado, Ali Murad, Dilmurad and two unidentified persons armed with guns. They pointed their weapons towards complainant with intention to rob them. Sanaullah tried to reverse his vehicle, therefore, accused Shahmeer fired from his K.K with intention to kill. Resultantly bullet hit to Sanaullah on his head and he became injured. Complainant party raised cries, therefore all accused made their escape. He was shifted to Civil Hospital Shikarpur then to Larkana for better treatment and they lodged the F.I.R. After registration of F.I.R., the applicants were arrested on 18-2-2011. Their bail application was filed but the same was dismissed on 12-4-2011 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur and that order is impugned in the present bail application. Today Azizullah, the complainant and Mumtaz Ali one of the eye-witness are present in person and have filed their affidavits stating therein that the names of the applicants were not given by them and the contents of the F.I.R. were not read over to them by the police officer in-charge of Police Station Khanpur. They further submitted that they have no objection if the applicants be released on bail. Heard Mr. Jai Jai Veshno, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.Ameer Ahmed Narejo, learned State Counsel. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that actually incident is unseen and there is no role against the applicants. Co-accused Shahmeer allegedly fired upon complainant party, resultantly Sanaullah brother of the complainant became injured who later on died in the Hospital. He also contended that the complainant and Damsaz Ali are eyewitnesses of the incident. Both have sworn their affidavits stating therein that the names of the accused have not been given by them in the F.I.R. and the F.I.R. was not read to them therefore they have no objection for grant of bail. He, therefore, prays that the applicants be released on bail. He has relied upon the case of Muhammad Najeeb v. The State 2009 SCMR 448 and the case of Muhammad Nawaz alias Najja v. The State 1991 SCMR

111. Learned State Counsel has opposed this bail application on the ground that the applicants were companions of main accused Shahmeer and they all in furtherance of their common intention tried to rob complainant party but while Datsun pick-up was reversed by Sanaullah then co-accused Shahmeer fired from his K.K upon him, resultantly he became injured and was died in the Hospital. He prays that the applicants are not entitled for the grant of bail. Their bail application be dismissed. I have perused the file. There is no cavil that the applicants are companions of co-accused Shahmeer who were allegedly armed with K.K and fired upon complainant party. Resultantly Sanaullah aged about 28 years brother of complainant became seriously injured and was died in the hospital. There may be no role against the applicants but they are companions of main accused Shahmeer. They in furtherance of common intention blocked the road, tried to rob the complainant party and while they failed to do so fired upon the complainant party. Resultantly a young person has lost his life. Filing affidavits by the complainant and the witnesses stating therein that the F.I.R. was not read over to them and the present applicants have committed no offence, amounts the tempering with their evidence, as during investigation they have supported the case of prosecution and therefore, the applicants were arrested. Sufficient material was collected by the Investigating Officer and then challan was filed. The facts and circumstances of the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants are distinguishable from the present case. I find no legal infirmity in bail rejection order passed by the Court of learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, therefore this application being merit less is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./S-85/K Bail refused.