2017 PLP 203 (YLRN)

AFTAB AHMED GORAR J.

Applicant/accused has approached to this court after rejection of his Bail Application by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IX, Karachi-West vide order dated 14.03.2017. The brief facts as narrated in the FIR are that the complainant is doing business of tiles and used to supply the tiles to accused Muhammad Tariq, who was indebted to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,840,000/- on demand of the money, on 17.07.2016 at about 2015 hours accused Tariq along with co-accused persons assaulted on complainant party and fired with intention to commit murder and runaway after extending threats. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contends that the Applicant/accused is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant in collusion with the police malafidely. He further submits that the final M.L.C. has been issued by the concerned authority/ doctor wherein the injury is shown as Shuja-e-Khafifah which does not fall under the prohibitory clause therefore, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. Learned Counsel for the Applicant urged that the complainant is habitual to lodge FIRs against the accused persons with collusion of area police, which finds supports from he photocopies of FIRs available from page-195 to onwards as the same were registered against the accused persons by the complainant party. Learned counsel for the applicant further urged that the police officials of P.S. Peerabad are also involved in abduction of present applicant for which FIR was lodged which is pending before ATC-1, at Karachi. Furthermore, a series of litigation is pending between the accused persons and complainant party, therefore, the case of the applicant is of further inquiry and he is entitled for grant of bail. He further submits that case does not fall within the parameter of section 324, P.P.C. as the injury received by the complainant was hit by but of gun and not by fire arm, which prima facie shows lack of intention of the accused to cause Qatl-e-Amd. Applicability of section 324, P.P.C. is yet to be determined by the Trial Court. He has relied upon the case of Zawar Hussain v. The State reported in 2010 YLR 873, the case of Umar Hayat v. The State reported in 2008 SCMR 1621, the case of Rehan v. The State reported in 2009 SCMR 181, the case of Salem Khan v. The State reported in 1999 PCr.LJ 140 and the case of Jan Muhammad v. (Haji) Noor Jamal and another reported in 1997 SCMR

500. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and submits that sufficient material is available on record which prima facie connects the Applicant in the crime as mentioned in the FIR. He further submits that the applicant along with other co-accused attached on the complainant party with intention to commit murder, therefore, he is not liable to get concession of bail at this stage. Learned counsel for the comp-lainant has relied upon the following cases:-- 1. 1998 SCMR 358,

2. PLD 2016 SC 11,

3. SBLR 2016 Sindh 1313, 4. 2004 PCr.LJ 962, 5. 2004 MLD (Peshawar) 594, 6. 2002 SCMR 1370, 7. 2007 PCr.LJ 1056, 8. 2004 PCr.LJ 1799, 9. 2000 PCr.LJ (Peshawar) 1167, 10. 2005 YLR (Lahore) 3182, 11. 2000 PCr.LJ (Karachi) 674, 12. 2006 YLR (Lahore) 2923 and 13. 2007 PCr.LJ

217. Learned APG also oppose the grant of bail to the accused and she adopts the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. I have heard Mr. S.M. Azad Khan counsel for the applicant, Mr. Irfan Ahmed Usmani counsel for the complainant, Ms. Seema Zaidi APG and persued the material available on record with their assistance. On tentative assessment of material available on record, it reveals that it is admitted by the complainant in the FIR that there is business relation between him and accused persons and some amount/money was due against accused Muhammad Tariq. It is also an admitted position that a series of FIRs is in field against the accused persons lodged by the complainant party, which are available from page-195 to onwards. Only one injury was received by the brother of the complainant Rizwan on his head which was inflicted by the accused from the Butt of the pistol and said injury has been declared by the doctors as Shuja-e-Khafifah. It is also admitted fact that no one from the complainant party deceived any fire-arm injuries. There were no such circumstances which could have prevented accused persons from completing offence, if they really intended to commit murder. Injuries reflected by applicant were Shuja-e-Khafifah. It could not be asserted that section 324, P.P.C. would apply in instant case. The applicant is behind the bars since October, 2016 and his case does not fall under prohibitory clause. The case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant are distinguishable and the same are not applicable/helpful to the present case. Facts, circumstances and case laws as discussed above makes the case of the Applicant doubtful and of further inquiry, therefore, I find no reasons to withhold the concession of bail to the Applicant. Hence, the Applicant, is hereby admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three (03) months under compliance report to this Court through MIT-II. WA/M-56/Sindh Bail granted.