2001 PLP 3290 (YLR)

Shoukat Ali, Pathan for Applicant. Anwar Ansari for the State. The applicant has been arrested in a case registered at Police Station Tando Muhammad Khan, for an offence punishable under sections 324 and 504 read with 34 and 114, P.P.C. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. are that Abid Gul the injured/victim in this case had given a friendly loan of Rs.2,000 to one Victor. On the day of incident at 10-00 a.m. Abid Gul as per undertaking of Victor went to Tando Muhammad Khan Railway Station at 10-00 p.m. where the amount was to be paid to him. At 11-30 p.m. complainant Gul Hassan's brother Siddik informed the complainant that he was standing at Tando Muhammad Khan Railway Station when Abid Gul reached there and in the meantime at 10 30 p.m. Victor accompanied by his son Bobi alias Rictor and an unidentified person appeared armed with hatchets and on the instigation of the said unidentified person Victor and his son inflicted hatchet belows upon Abid Gul who fell down on receiving injuries. The complainant rushed to the place of incident and removed his son to Police Station and after obtaining a letter from Police, shifted him to Taluka Hospital Tando Muhammad Khan. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 9-2-2001 at 10-30 p.m. and the victim was first removed to Police Station yet the F.I.R. was lodged on 12-2-2001 i.e. after 3 days and no explanation has been offered for this delay. He submitted that the applicant has been involved in this case at a very late stage when the statement of victim, which was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 13-3-2001 and contended that earlier on 12-2-2001 statement of victim was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein he did not involve the applicant although the applicant is admittedly a co-villager of the victim and complainant. He argued that the case of applicant requires further inquiry. In support of his contention he relied on 1996 SCMR 1654. Mr. Ansari learned State counsel frankly conceded that apparently there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and the name of the applicant has not been mentioned in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. but he has been implicated at a very late stage. In the F.I.R. the applicant is said to be an unidentified person but he has been implicated in the-statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. of victim which was recorded after one month and four days of the occurrence although the victim remained in Hospital only for four days. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to indicate that the victim was not capable of speaking during the days he was admitted as indoor patient. The delay in recording the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. is not explained. Moreover, in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim remained silent and did not state anything about the identity of the unidentified assailant. Nevertheless, the role assigned to the applicant is that of instigation and the actual injuries are attributed to the co accused. The principle laid down in 1996 SCMR 1654, Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State fully supports the bail plea. The learned State counsel also does riot oppose the bail. The bail plea is accordingly accepted and the application is allowed. The applicant may be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. J.A.M./A-265/K Bail granted.