2009 PLP 1000 (YLR)

SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.

This bail application is directed against the order dated 8-9-2007 passed by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) in Sessions case No.30/2007, in Crime No.290/2006, under sections 302/324/394/34, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Clifton whereby application of the applicant was dismissed. Precisely, the facts of the prosecu tion case are that the complainant Shamsud din lodged an F.I.R. on 31-12-2006 at 0515 hours regarding the incident, which is said to have occurred on 30-12-2006 at 2100 hours near Chandni Chowk, Upper Gizri, Clifton, in which the complainant stated that when he was present at his home he came to know that his son Masood Akhtar had a quarrel with some Brohi boys and his son had been injured as a result of firing and had been transported to the Jinnah Hospital and subsequently to Liaquat National Hospital. The complainant went to the Hospital and found his son in its Emergency Centre, and there he came to know that one Imran son of Muhammad Umer along with 2-3 companions caused fire-arm injures to his son with TT pistol with the intention to kill, hence F.I.R. was registered under sections 324/34, P.P.C. The police arrested the accused Imran Brohi son of Muhammad Umer and thereafter, inspected the place of incidence and secured three empties of a pistol of .30 bore from the place of incidence, and also prepared site inspection memo., but on the next day the injured succumbed to his injures, as a result, section. 302, P.P.C. was added. The accused and the co-accused were arrested. The statements of the witnesses under section 164, Cr.P.C. were recorded before the Judicial Magistrate-VII, Karachi (South) and witnesses said to have also identified all the three accused. Thereafter challan has been submitted before the trial Court. It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused namely Umair and Imran son of Sadiq have .been granted -bail by this Court in criminal Bail Application bearing No. 800/2008 vide order dated 13-8-2008 therefore, applicant is also entitled for the same relief as per rule of consistency. Learned State counsel has conceded. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the record. Though the case of the applicant is different from the co-accused as the name of the applicant has been mentioned in the F.I.R. with specific role and one P.W. Farooq also nominated the applicant in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. but the prosecution also implicated the co-accused without any evidence, and besides, the F.I.R. was not lodged by eye-witness and there are material contradictions in the prosecution story. The applicant is in custody since 1-1-2007 and till now only examination of the complainant has been completed. The applicant himself went to the same hospital where the injured/deceased was brought, makes the case one of further enquiry. I restrain myself to any deeper appreciation at this stage, as it may prejudice either party. Nevertheless, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above and in the bail order of the co-accused and on the grounds of the Rule of consistency the applicant is entitled to bail, hence bail was granted to the applicant subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Above are the reasons of the short order dated 13-10-2008. N.H.Q./I-31/K Bail allowed.