2022 PLP 8 (YLRN)

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.

Through the captioned bail application, applicants Ali Muhammad, Khan Muhammad, Jan Muhammad all three Sons of Shafi Muhammad and Yar Muhammad Son of Muhammad Juman all by caste Khaskheli seek their release on post arrest bail in the case, for offences under sections 324, 147, 148, 149, 504, 302, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), P.P.C, emanating from FIR No.49 of 2019, registered at Police Station Khan, after their such bail plea has been declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas by dismissing their bail application vide order dated 12.12.2019.

2. The learned counsel for the applicants has mainly contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the subject case by the complainant party due to their dispute over a plot; that the applicants had not caused any injury to deceased Ghulam Qadir, but they were assigned the role of causing injuries to PWs/injured Muhammad Hanif, Abdul Latif, Ashraf and Arab; that the applicants had sustained injuries at the hands of complainant party, but the same have been suppressed by the complainant in his FIR; and, that the case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the applicants, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Alam Zeb and another v. The State and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 760), Faqir Hussain alias Bali v. The State and others (2014 SCMR 1502], Awal Khan and 7 others v. The State through AG-KPK and another (2017 SCMR 538) and Saif Ullah v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1458).

3. The learned Advocate for the complainant has mainly contended that the applicants have been nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to PWs/injured Muhammad Hanif, Abdul Latif, Ashraf and Arab; that the applicants' accompanying main accused Anwar, who caused hatchet injuries to Ghulam Qadir on his head and other parts of his body, resulting into his death, duly armed with hatchets and causing hatchet injuries to the above named four injured persons on their heads and other parts of bodies, had shared common intention with main accused Anwar, therefore, per learned counsel, the applicants are not entitled to the grant of bail.

4. The learned Assistant Prosecutor General, endorsing the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the grant of bail to the applicants.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material brought on the record and the police file with the assistance of learned Assistant Prosecutor General.

6. From a perusal of the record it would be seen that the applicants are nominated in the subject FIR with specific role of causing injuries to four PWs namely Muhammad Hanif, Abdul Latif, Ashraf and Arab on their heads and other parts of bodies with hatchets; all the applicants have also been named by the PWs including the above named injured PWs in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C.; medical evidence is in line with the ocular version; no counter case has been registered against the complainant party and the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants relating to the receiving of injuries by the applicants, prima facie show their presence at the place of incident; the FIR was lodged on the same day of offence that is on 14.10.2019 and distance between place of incident and police station as shown in FIR was about three kilometers. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view, that prima facie there is sufficient material against the applicants to connect them with this crime involving murder of one person namely Ghulam Qadir and injuries to four persons named above on their heads and other parts of bodies, falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, in my humble view, the applicants are not entitled to the grant of bail. The case law cited by learned counsel for the applicants being distinguishable on facts and circumstances is not helpful for the applicants, for, the case of Alam Zeb and another supra involved the offence under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. read with sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act; case of Faqir Hussain alias Bali supra involved the allegation against the petitioner that he along with his co-accused gave beatings to prosecution witnesses and medical evidence showed that all the injuries sustained by prosecution witnesses constituted bailable offences and despite directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the learned High Court, the trial of the accused was not progressing; in case of Awal Khan and 7 others supra, there was contradictions in ocular and medical evidence, and whereas in case of Saif Ullah supra the accused reached at the spot when the incident was almost over. And thus, none of the cited cases involved the facts and circumstances as are involved in the instant case. In such view of the matter, this bail application deserves to be dismissed. These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 28.02.2020, whereby this bail application was dismissed.

7. Needless to add that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding this bail application, which shall not in any manner influence the learned trial court at the time of final decision of the subject case. SA/A-146/Sindh Bail declined.