1996 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Daud Baloch for Applicants. Sardar A. Sattar Chohan for the State. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the present applicants who are involved in a case registered as Crime No.108/94 with City Police Station of Jacobabad initially under section 324 read with sections 34, 109, P.P.C. and 13-D, Arms Ordinance which was subsequently converted to section 302, P.P.C. Briefly the allegations in the F.I.R. are that the parties are on inimical terms and their cases are pending in the Courts and on the said date when the complainant party was returning after attending the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad and reached near Sabzi Mandi at about noon time they saw the present three applicants alongwith one co-accused Dad Karim who were all armed with country-made revolvers. All the accused are said to have challenged the father of the complainant, namely, deceased Lal Jan. Applicants Muhammad Rahim and Murad Shah are alleged to have tired from their weapons at the deceased who fell down whereupon absconding accused Dad Karim is also alleged to have fired at him which also hit him. The allegation against applicant Momin Shah is that he fired at the complainant hitting on his private part The complainant also fell down. Thereafter it is alleged that the accused persons gave blows to the deceased and the complainant with the butt of their revolvers and then went away. F.I.R. was registered and the police, after usual investigation, arrested the present three applicants and sent up the case for trial. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Daud Baloch, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Abdul Sattar Chohan, Advocate appearing for the State. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that according to F.I.R. present applicants Murad Shah and Muhammad Rahim and so also the absconding accused Dad Karim had all fired from their country-made revolvers at the deceased and all of them had hit him whereas according to the post-mortem report the deceased had suffered only two wounds of entry from a fire arm while the other two wounds are that of exit. From this the learned counsel has argued that there is inconsistency in the medical evidence and the oral evidence. He has submitted that in such case this would be a case of further inquiry and the applicants would be entitled to grant of bail. He has placed reliance on the case of Khan Mir v. Aman Sherin 1989 SCMR 1987. In this case their Lordships in the Supreme Court while dealing with a case of cancellation of bail had restored the bail initially granted by Sessions Judge in a case where there was allegation against three persons of having fired at the deceased but the deceased had suffered only one gunshot injury. The facts of the case appear to be similar to the present case. The learned counsel has further argued that there is no independent witness associated in the case although the murder is alleged to have taken place in broad daylight at noon time in the Sabzi Mandi of Jacobabad Town which is a thickly populated and busy market place. No explanation has, come forward as to why the prosecution has not associated the private persons to act as such witness or Mashir. In these circumstances Mr. Abdul Sattar Chohan also does not oppose the bail application for these two applicants. Accordingly I admit applicants Muhammad Rahim and Murad Shah to bail. They shall be released on their furnishing one surety each in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each and P.R. bond each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. As regards applicant Momin Shah the allegation against him is that he has tired at the complainant with the intention to kill, hitting him on private parts but the medical evidence shows that the injury sustained by the complainant is only simple in nature. In view of the fact that the two co-accused have been granted bail I would admit applicant Momin Shah also to bail. He will also be released on bail subject to his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-33/K Bail granted.