1989SCMR253 (PLP)

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 14‑12‑1987 refusing to grant petitioners' request for bail pending trial of a case against them under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 114 & 323, P.P.C. According to the prosecution case, on 12‑10‑1987 when Shamil, the first informant in the case and his nephew Ghulam Rasool went to their land, they saw 20/25 goats damaging their cotton crop and petitioner Sadoro was standing nearby. They told him that they would take the cattle to the pond and while they were doing so, Piyaro Oad, Khamo, Umer Malah, Haji Jamaluddin and Shamsuddin came there armed with weapons. Piyaro is said to have fired gun which hit Shamil, and Khamo fired pistol which hit Ghulam Rasool while Sadoro gave lathi blows to Ghulam Rasool. Petitioners' request for bail was refused by the Sessions Judge and the learned Judge in the High Court mainly on the ground that specific parts were assigned to them. In support of this petition for leave to appeal, M.I. Memon, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since petitioner Sadoro was carrying a lathi and he is said to have caused lathi injuries to Ghulam Rasool which are simple in nature and are not on any vital part of the body, the offence committed by him, if any, would at best fall under section 325, P.P.C. which entitles him to bail at this stage. In this behalf, learned counsel further submitted that since the quarrel between the parties arose out of damage to complainant's cultivation done by the goats of accused party, the intention of the accused could not be any other than to rescue the cattle with show of force, or with slight force but not causing the murder. It was urged that this plea is valid at least in the case of Sadoro petitioner, who would, at best, be responsible for the simple injuries caused to Ghulam Rasool. There seems to be force in these submissions, and learned Assistant Advocate‑General who appears for the State also does not oppose grant of bail so far as Sadoro petitioner is concerned. The case of Khamo petitioner is however on different plane, for, he is said to have caused injuries to Ghulam Rasool with the fire‑arm. For these reasons we convert this petition into an appeal and allow it in part, in that, while dismissing the request for bail of Khamo petitioner, we grant the same so far as Sadoro petitioner is concerned, and direct that he shall be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. 2.5,000 and on execution of personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court, Sanghar. M.Y.H./S‑208/S Order accordingly.