2002 PLP 504 (MLD)

Ali Muhammad Dahri for Applicant. M. Azeem Panhwar for the State. Date of hearing: 15th September, 2001. Besides advancing the bail plea on merits the learned counsel for applicant emphasized that practically the order of this Court passed on 4‑6‑2001 directing the trial Court to examine at least the material witnesses within two months has been neglectfully ignored and no substantial progress has been made for which reasons assigned in the impugned order are absolutely insufficient. As regards the merits the learned counsel contended that the F.I.R. would indicate that allegedly as many as 20 persons had collected at the place of occurrence and they caused Soti blows to Police Constables Muhammad Khan and Ghulam Rasool which were found to be simple in nature. Yet, none of these injuries is attributed to these applicants. He urged that the allegation of dereliction of duties in escorting the under‑trial prisoners from Hyderabad Jail to Sukkar Jail, is not well‑founded, while the guilt of applicants with regard to allegation of attempt to commit Qatl‑e‑Amd calls for further inquiry. Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, learned State Counsel frankly submitted that there is no direct allegation against the present applicant as far the injuries are concerned. In order to elucidate the background of the case it may be stated that the under trial prisoner Niaz Kundi was being shifted from Central Prison Hyderabad to Central Prison Sukkur for his production before the A.T.C. Court at Sukkur and on the way, as alleged in the F.I.R., the escorting police party including the applicant arranged his meeting with his relatives at Sakrand; which fact was communicated to complainant A.S.I. Niaz Hussain of Police Station Sakrand, who alongwith police party reached there, but at least 20 private persons who had collected there offered resistance to the arrest of the applicants as also the UTP, and, during that course P.C. Muhammad Khan and P.C. Ghulam Rasool received injuries. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that S.D.M. Sakrand had reached there to control the situation and even two shells of teargas were fired but incidentally the said S.D.M. has not been cited as a witness in the Challan. The .directions of this Court were specific arid the learned trial Court was bound to take steps to implement the same or I otherwise furnish plausible 'reasons to justify the delay in not examining the witnesses but unfortunately the impugned order suffers from digression. Anyhow, the fact remains that the material witnesses could not be examined for no fault of accused and apparently there is no rational explanation to justify the non compliance. In such situation the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Aslam v. State ('1999 SCMR 2147) and Jadeed Gul v: State (1998 SCMR 1124) cited by learned counsel for applicants would certainly extend due benefit to the applicants. On merits, as well, I. would agree with learned counsel for applicants and learned State Counsel that injuries have not been attributed to applicants and excepting the abusive language used by them there is no overt act to demonstrate any resistance on their part or to instigate the others to inflict injuries. The guilt of applicants as regards allegation of attempt to commit Qatl-i‑Amd, as such, calls for further inquiry. For the reasons stated above the application is allowed. The applicants be released on furnishing sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and. executing P.R. Bond in the like amount by each applicant to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.BT./N‑80/K Bail granted.