2010 PLP 956 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.

By this order I intend to dispose of criminal bail application filed on behalf of applicants Miandad and Sabir, both sons of Bakhshal by caste Jamali, in a case bearing crime F.I.R. No. 4 of 2003, Police Station Pat Gul Muhammad, District Dadu, registered under sections 302, 109, 34, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicants has declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Dadu vide order, dated 21-2-2004. According to the F.I.R. on 29-5-2003 accused persons, namely, Abbas, Miandad and Sabir, all sons of Bakhsho Jamali went to the house of complainant Ali Nawaz Kambrani and at 11-00 a.m. asked Soomar, father-in-law of complainant, to accompany them saying that he had been called by their uncle Muhammad Khan Jamali. Soomar accompanied them and at about 11-40 a.m., when they reached near the land of Kirir Muhammad Babar the complainant party heard fire from there. Complainant along with Khamiso son of Soomar and Uris went towards fire report running and noticed accused persons Abbas, Miandad and Sabir Jamalis, escaping away and found Soomar lying on the ground having fire-arm injuries on right side of belly and left arm and was dead. Subsequently, such F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant with police. The reason for the occurrence assigned by the complainant in the F.I.R. is that a week ago Soomar was asked by accused Abbas to leave the harap of the land of Nooruddin Leghari, who had refused and Abbas had issued threats of dire consequences. The investigation followed and in due course the applicants were sent up to stand trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dadu. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the police papers. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case against them is false, who have been involved in the background of enmity and suspicion. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the F.I.R. is belated by eight hours and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. It has also been contended that it is quite un-witnessed crime as none has seen the incident. It was further contended that the 161, Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses were recorded after long delay of 48 days, besides as far 164, Cr.P.C. statements are concerned, those were recorded after the delay of 50 days. It has been also contended that as per record, the applicants were shown to be armed with hatches but no hatchet wounds were found on the person of the deceased. The perusal of the medical report also reveals that deceased sustained no injury by means of hatchet. On all these scores it has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that it is a fit case where the applicants could be enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel conceded to the above legal position and raised no objection to the grant of bail. For what it has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that learned counsel for the applicants has been able to make out a case for bail, which is granted provided if the applicants furnish surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Criminal Bail Application No. 179 of 2004 stands disposed of. H.B.T./M-64/K Bail granted.