2004 PLP 1111 (YLR)

Mumtaz Ali Khan Deshmukh for the State.

1. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

2. The allegation as disclosed in the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Nawab Masih on 26-9-2002 at Police Station PIB Colony, Karachi, under section 321, P.P.C. (as duly amended) against the applicants is that Mst. Zarina Masih wife of complainant was passing from a street where some construction work was being carried out by accused/applicant Aslam Masih through his co-accused Tariq Masih, Estephan Masih and Mistry Munir. Due to falling of the wall being constructed upon a shade of the shop of accused Aslam Masih, Mst. Zarina Masih, received serious injuries, which resulted in her death after sometime. It is contended by Ms. Raana Khan learned counsel for the applicants that the incident is just an accident. Neither there was any motive nor enmity between the parties and it was by chance that the portion of the wall fell down on the ground resulting in injury to Mst. Zarina Masih. She has further argued that even according to section 321, P.P.C. the punishment is payment of Diat amount. She further argued that applicants are members of one and the same family. Applicants Nos.1 and 2 are father and son respectively whereas applicant No.3 is nephew of applicant No.1. The learned counsel has, therefore, prayed for grant of bail under the circumstances of the case. The learned State counsel has opposed to the grant of bail and argued that the construction raised was unauthorized and poor material was being used which resulted in unnatural death of Mst. Zarina Masih. He has further argued that the threats are being issued to the complainant by the applicants through his relatives. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned State Counsel. Indeed, there is nothing to show, that the construction was being raised under an approved plan. However, it is contended hat it is a Katchi Abadi and the applicants being the owners of the property themselves ire not expected to use poor material for heir own construction and it was just a chance that the lady was passing through the street and received the injuries which resulted in her death. She has denied that any threats are being issued by the accused and according to her it is an afterthought on the part of the complainant. Even otherwise there is no occasion for issue of 1 such threats and there is no proof for the same. I am in agreement with the view expressed by learned counsel for the applicants that in the absence of any motive or enmity, it appears to be a case of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly, bail is granted to all the three applicants provided each of them furnishes solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-18/K Bail granted.