2009 PLP 914 (YLR)

SALMAN ANSARI, J.

The applicant Muhammad Yasin is facing trial in F.I.R. No.148/2008 under sections 322, 337-H(i), 336 & 427, P.P.C., lodged in police station Mehmoodabad Jamshed Town, Karachi.

2. Breif facts as per F.I.R. are that the applicant was constructing his house. The complainant and the other respectable Muhallah people went to the applicant and told that under construction wall has great danger to the roof of complainant. On 1-6-2008 the complainant and others were present, at the house and suddenly at about 10-30 a.m. the wall which was towards the house of complainant fell down on the roof of complainant's house which was covered with cemented sheets with the result thereof the brother of the complainant Muhammad Bux and the mechanic Tanveer were seriously injured. The household articles mentioned in F.I.R. were smashed.

3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that he is innocent and it was the masons fault that wall collapsed and caused the accident, offences are bailable, diyat is prescribed for an offence committed under section 322, P.P.C., in support of his contention the learned counsel for applicant relying upon 1998 MLD 1537, (Muhammad Nadeem v. The State), 2006 PCr.LJ 80 (Ali Dost v. The State).

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail. He has argued that an inspection was conducted by the Investigating Officer which shows that the applicant had acted in gross negligence in the construction of the unauthorized wall and inspite of repeated complaints of the complainant and neighbours continued the construction which fell on the neighbours house killing one' person and injuring others, relying on 2005 PCr.LJ 1648 (Atta Muhammad v. The State) and L994 PCr.LJ 406 (Munir Hussain v. The State) wherein cases falling under section 322, P.P.C. bail was refused by the Hon'ble High Court.

5. Having 'heard the arguments and perused the case law cited, in, this case. It is, prima facie, established that applicant/ accused was acting in gross violation of the safety measures required for such construction, without any permission from the concerned authority for raising the unauthorized construction is evident from the report of SHO Mehmoodabad, Police Station where one person was killed and other had received grievous injuries.

6. Under such circumstances and referring to the case law cited by the learned counsel for the State and complainant in which bail was refused under section 322, P.P.C., I find no merit in this bail application which is accordingly rejected. This is with due respect to the case law cited which in my humble opinion is not applicable in view of the above discussion.

7. These are the reasons of the short order passed on 30-9-2008 for rejection of this bail application. A.M.R./M-173-K Bail refused.