1990 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑ ‑S. 498.‑‑Penal Code (XI.V of 1860), S.307/34‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑ Accused was allegedly armed with a Danda and two injuries by blunt weapon were found ort ti.e person of injured‑‑‑Two injuries were mentioned as pain‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail as not confirmed in circumstances. A.Q. Halepota for Applicants Hayat Qureshi for the State. G.M. Saleem for the Complainant. The 3 applicants have applied for bail before arrest. They are co‑accused alongwith one Sabir in F.I.R. No.324 of 1988 lodged by one injured Muhammad Shahid under section 307/34, P.P.C. with the Police Station Korangi alleging therein that one Sabir co‑accused was allegedly armed with Chhuri and hatchet, whereas applicant No.2 Ghayasuddin alias Gachoo was allegedly armed with iron pipe and applicant No.3 Muhammad Yameen son of Haji Allauddin was allegedly armed with Danda. It was alleged that there was some altercation on 27‑9‑1988 between Sabir son of Abdul Malik and the complainant's elder brother Sharafuddin, whereby former had abused the latter and that after some time he alongwith applicant No.l Abdul Malik alias Bhora. Muhammad Yameen armed with Danda and Ghayasuddin armed with iron pipe abused theca. It was alleged that Sabir had caused Chhuri/hatchet injury to Muhammad Shahid, whereas applicants Nos. 2 and 3 had caused Danda injuries to Sharafuddin, who was also inflicted injury by Sabir. It may be mentioned that at the bottom of the F.I.R. after recording of the F.I.R. Bashir Ahmed, Sub‑Inspector made endorsement to the effect that the complainant after signing the F.I.R. stated that Mst. Rasheedan and Mursaleen had also received the injuries and they were at home. No other act is attributed to any of the accused in relation to Mst. Rasheedan and Mursaleen in the above endorsement. Be that as it may the applicants were admitted to interim bail on 12‑10‑1988. The case has come up for confirmation of the above interim bail. The above, application has been opposed by Mr. G.M. Saleem learned counsel for the State. In support of the above bail application Mr. A.Q. Halepota, learned counsel for the applicants, has vehemently urged that since there is an admitted enmity between the applicants and the complainant party, the applicants have been falsely implicated and that in any case at this stage, it cannot be said as to who had caused the injuries particularly the one grievous injury to Sharafuddin and secondly, it cannot also be said that whether the accused had the intention to kill or to cause only injury as to attract sections 324, 325 and 326, P.P.C. On the other hand Messrs Hayat Qureshi and G.M. Saleem learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant party respectively, have submitted that the applicants are involved in previous criminal cases as well and that there is no false implication. It has also been urged by them that it is not a fit case for bail before arrest. It may be mentioned that the complainant party has filed 3 copies of the complaints alongwith their 3 F.I.R. One of the F.1.R No. 3 of 1982, which is under section 147/148/307, P.P.C. implicate applicants Nos. 1 and 2 whereas the other two F.I.R do not mention the name of any of the 3 applicants. From the factum that there is a previous F.I.R. it can be urged that there was some enmity between the parties prior to the present incident. In this view of the matter, it I cannot be ruled out that there could have been false implication by implicating any number of the accused as possible. Even if I were to accept the version given in the F.I.R. as correct, no other act has been attributed to the applicant No.1 except instigation, whereas applicant No.2 was allegedly armed with iron pipe but Danda injuries have been mentioned in the F.I.R. and as per medical certificate, the injured Sharafuddin had injury caused by some blunt substance. The applicant No.3 has been said to have Danda as per F.I.R. There are factually two injuries on injured Sharafuddin and two are not injuries but are mentioned as Lain, In my view at present at the most we can attribute two Danda injuries to applicant No.3. I would, therefore, confirm the bail to applicants Nos. 1 and 2, dismiss the application for bail of applicant No.3. However, it will be open to applicant No.3 to move a fresh after his arrest. H.B.T./A‑678/K Order accordingly.