2009 PLP 590 (YLR)

BIN YAMIN, J.

This order will dispose of bail application made on behalf of applicant/ accused Dinal alias Kuraro, who is detained in case F.I.R No.13/2007, registered under sections 324, 34, P.P.C. read with section 17 (3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, at P.S. Mehar of District Dadu. Brief facts of the case are that on 10-1-2007, complainant Ghulam Sarwar lodged F.I.R at above noted police station, stating therein that he along with his maternal uncle Muhammad Younis and brother Ali Asghar left their village on motorcycle for Mehar Town. He further stated that when they reached near curve of village Kamanger, it was 12-00 hours. That at this place they saw three persons and identified them as Dinal alias Kuraro armed with gun, Totto armed with Kalashnikov and Niaz armed with pistol. The accused persons signaled complainant party to stop, on which they stopped. Thereafter the accused persons tried to rob the complainant and others of their motorcycle and on resistance accused Totto made fire with his Kalashnikov which hit complainant on his knee. The applicant/ accused also fired with his gun of which's pellets hit the complainant. Thereafter, it is alleged that the applicant/ accused and others forcibly took away the motorcycle of the complainant party. The complainant then came at police station and lodged F.I.R of the matter. Heard Advocate for the applicant/accused, learned State counsel and perused the case papers. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case because of some family dispute in between the parties. That the recovery if any allegedly made from the applicant/accused has been foisted upon applicant only to implicate him as culprit of this case. That applicant/accused was arrested on the day, on which the F.I.R was lodged after an encounter with police, but nobody in the alleged encounter sustained any injury. That challan has been filed against the applicant/accused and he. is no more required by the police for further investigation. He, therefore, requested for grant of instant bail application. Learned State Counsel has opposed this bail application on the ground that there is medical evidence which shows that complainant had sustained fire-arm injuries in this case. That soon after the incident applicant/ accused was arrested by the police and the robbed motorcycle along with DBBL gun was secured from his possession. Thus the prosecution has fully established its prima facie case against the applicant/ accused and there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicant/accused is involved in the commission of this offence. That the plea by the learned counsel for applicant/accused amounts to defence, which can be considered by the trial Court after recording of evidence and for the purpose of grant of bail this Court cannot undertake detailed examination of the defence pleas raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused. He, therefore, requested for rejection of this bail application. Perusal of the case papers shows that applicant/ accused was soon after the incident arrested and robbed motorcycle was secured from his possession in presence of witnesses along with an unlicensed gun. There is presently nothing available on record to show that the complainant has reason to falsely implicate applicant/ accused and others in this case. No documentary proof has been brought on record to show that there exists any family dispute in between the parties. Merely oral word of the defence side is not sufficient to show that the applicant accused is falsely involved in this case. It is also an admitted position that evidence of none of the witnesses has been recorded in this case, therefore, prima facie there exists a case to believe that the applicant/accused is involved in the commission of this offence. The punishment provided for the offence under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 is amputation of right hand and left foot of 14-years, therefore, the case also falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence, finding no merit in this application at this stage, I hereby dismiss the same. However, the learned trial Court is directed to examine material witnesses of this case within four months from the date of receipt of this order without fall under intimation to this Court, as the applicant/accused is detained in jail for the last more than one and half year. M.H./D-20/K Bail refused.