2025 PLP 1954 (YLR)

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.

Through instant application, applicants Muneer Ahmed, Muhammad Ameen and Zameer, seek their admission on pre-arrest bail in Crime No.157/2023 of Police Station Tando Masti Khan for the offence punishable to Sections 324, 337-A(i), A-(ii), 337-F((i), F-(vi), 337-L(2), 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. The case has been challaned which is now pending for trial before the Court of II-Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur Mir's, vide Sessions Case No.965/2023 Re-The State v. Zameer Chandio and others.

2. The applicants filed three successive applications before the Court below which were turned down by way of different orders including the order dated 26.09.2024 (impugned order), hence this application has been maintained.

3. At the very outset learned counsel for the applicants places on record a copy of case diary dated 10.10.2024 and copy of agreement in respect of disputed land under the cover of his statement dated 14.11.2024.

4. Per prosecution case, the complainant party had leased out the lands to the applicants and they intended to cancel such lease agreement hence approached to the accused which annoyed them on the pretext that their father late Mehar Ali Chandio, had sold it out to them and they are in peaceful possession since 2007. On 09.11.2023 complainant along with his son Pehlwan and cousin Mst. Sonia went to land where the accused Muneer Ahmed allegedly caused lathi blow to PW Pehlwan on his head and chin whereas accused Muhammad Ameen caused hatchet blow to Pehlwan at his face and accused Zameer caused gunshot injury to Mst. Sonia, which landed at her left leg. To such effect aforesaid FIR was lodged.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the father of complainant, namely, Mehar Ali, had sold out the land in dispute to them in the year 2007 and right from 2007, the applicants are enjoying its possession as well as produce. The applicants had approached to complainant party for mutation, therefore, they instead of fulfilling the agreement executed by their late father had manipulated instant case so that the applicants may surrender the land. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries allegedly attributed to the applicants are either on non-vital part of the body or carrying lesser punishment, therefore, case against the applicants requires further enquiry.

6. On the other hand learned Addl. P. G appearing for the State submits that a lady has been got injured at the hands of accused over the matter of landed property, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for the concession of bail.

7. Mr. Khan Muhammad Sangi, learned counsel for the complainant also opposes the bail application on the ground that intention of the accused is specific and they in order to commit Qatl-i-Amd of the complainant party have caused multiple injuries to them, therefore, they are not entitled for the bail. In support of his contentions he places his reliance upon the cases of Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2022 SCMR 750), Attaullah v. The State (2024 PCr.LJ 940), Owaisullah Khan and another v. The State (2012 MLD 586) and Syed Safdar Abbas and others v. The State (2007 YLR 1714).

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their assistance.

9. No doubt the applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to P.Ws. The injuries allegedly sustained by the injured P.Ws are either on non-vital part of the body or carrying lesser punishment. Per prosecution case, the accused Muneer Ahmed caused lathi blow to P.W Pehlwan on his chin and the injuries so sustained has been opined by the Medico legal Officer to be punishable under section 337-A(i) and carrying punishment of two years besides is bailable. The role attributed to accused Muhammad Ameen who allegedly caused hatchet blow to PW Pehlwan on his face and the said injury has been declared by the Medico legal Officer to be punishable under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. carrying five years punishment. As far as role attributed to the applicant Zameer is concerned, he allegedly fired gunshot injury to Mst. Sonia which landed on her left leg and the injury so sustained by her has been declared by the Medico legal Officer to be punishable under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. carrying seven years punishment. The injuries attributed to applicant Muneer Ahmed that he allegedly caused lathi blow to Pehlwan on his head and chin is belied by the medical evidence as per medical certificate, as the injuries so sustained by him on his chin is available only. Whereas, the injury attributed to him sustained on his head is missing. It is an admitted position of record that none of accused has repeated the injury through which it could be deduced that they had any intention to commit Qatl-i-Amd of the P.Ws, hence application of Section 324, P.P.C. is yet to be determined by the trial Court after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In the circumstances, when the parties are already on strained relations over landed property and the land claimed by the complainant party to be their own is in possession of the accused since 2007, therefore, agreement executed by father of the complainant party has not been denied. Therefore, mala fide on the part of prosecution cannot be ruled out.

10. In view of above, the basic ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail as has been laid down by the learned apex Court in the case of Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 SC 427) are fully attracted in this case. Hence the case of the applicants in view of dicta laid down by the apex Court in cases of Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others v. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 730) and the case of Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 733), requires further enquiry within meaning of subsection (2) to Section 497 Cr.P.C Consequentily, the bail application is hereby allowed. Interim bail granted to the applicants on 07.10.2024 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The applicants present are directed to continue their appearance before the Trial Court till final decision of the case.

11. The trial Court shall expedite the trial and conclude it within shortest possible time. JK/M-33/Sindh Bail confirmed.