2011 PCr (PLP)

SALMAN HAMID, J.

After dismissal of the bail application by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur in Crime No.129 of 2006, Police Station New Faujdari, under sections 324, 392, 506/2, 114, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. present bail application has been moved by the applicant, Altaf Sethar, on the grounds that there was unexplained delay of fourteen days in lodging the F.I.R., that such F.I.R. was lodged because of the enmity between the parties, which enmity is admitted therein and therefore, false implication of applicant cannot be ruled out; that co-accused Muhammad Yousif alias Nachoo has already been granted bail and that since the case of the applicant is on the same footings, he is also entitled for the bail by following the rule of consistency. It was also urged that firing, which was mentioned in the F.I.R. was ineffective and that despite allegations that thirteen persons had fired on the complainant, the complainant sustained not even a single injury and that the memo of place of occurrence does not show recovery of any empty shells of such firing. It was further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not a previous convict and mere filing of number of cases against him would be not, a good ground for rejection of his bail application which prevailed upon learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. It was also urged that the police though disposed of the case under "B" class the learned Magistrate ordered submission of challan against 'the applicant and therefore under the circumstances he could have not been declared fugitive of law which too prevailed upon the learned 'Judge while dismissing his bail application. It was lastly urged that no specific robbery or dacoity was attributed to the applicant and under the circumstance he was entitled for bail. In support of his above arguments, learned counsel firstly relied upon case of Mitho Pitafi v. The State (2009 SCMR 299) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan had granted bail, keeping in view the fact that co-accused was also granted bail without getting impressed by the fact that the accused was a fugitive as the accused therein had a good Erase on merits. In the present case as well, according to me the applicant had a good case on merits, inasmuch as that no recovery of empties from the place of incident was made despite indiscriminate firing by thirteen persons and that no injury had been caused to the complainant and that co-accused was also granted bail together with the fact that the case of the applicant was put under "B" class during investigation. Secondly, the learned counsel relied upon the case of Muhammad Dawood and another v. The State and another (2008 SCMR 173), wherein again the Hon'ble Supreme Court following the rule of consistency and appreciating the fact that co-accused was granted bail, enlarged the accused therein on bail. Again this case falls on all fours in favour of the applicant inasmuch as that in the present case as well, co-accused is on bail. Thirdly, case of Jamshaid Ahmad v. The State (2003 YLR 1378 Lahore) was relied upon, wherein the Lahore High Court enlarged the accused on bail by appreciating the fact that the bail cannot be refused merely on the ground that the applicant was required in other cases or some other criminal cases were pending against him. The applicant herein in all other cases namely Crime Nos. 97 of 2004, 94 of 2006 and 26 of 2010, has been granted bail. Certified true copies of bail granting orders were produced before this Court. Therefore, the view taken by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge Shikarpur, that other criminal cases were pending against the applicant and therefore cannot be granted the benefit of bail in my opinion was not sound. It may be observed that above precedents were cited before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur at the time of hearing of bail application. However no discussion is available to show that the learned Judge was not impressed or the same were not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely dismissing the bail application on the ground that the accused was arrested after four years of the incident and that some cases are pending against him without appreciating the fact that in such cases bail was granted on the ground of further enquiry and that mere absconding does not came into the way of the applicant for applying for bail, if otherwise a case for bail was made out on merits was not a good approach. For the foregoing reasons, this bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 300,000 (Three hundred thousands only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./A-90/K Bail granted.