2025 PLP 775 (MLD)

Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J.

The applicants Gul Bahar and Ghulam Murtaza are seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No.31 of 2024 for the offenses under sections 324, 337-F(iv), A(i), F(i), 147, 148, 149, 504 P.P.C at Police Station Chotiyaroon.

2. The trial Court declined their earlier bail plea vide order dated 24.07.2024 on the premise that the applicants are nominated in FIR with specific roles for causing severe injuries to the victims on vital and non-vital parts, with intent to commit their qatl-i-amd; that delay in registration of FIR is properly explained; that accusations are supported by statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., coupled with medicolegal certificate; that the alleged offense carries prohibition contained in Section 497 Cr.P.C.

3. The accusation against the applicants are that on 07-07.2024, they caused severe injuries to injured Asim Mansoor, Sher Usama, and Ghulam Mustafa on their vital and non-vital parts. Such a report of the incident was given to police on 10.07.2024.

4. The counsel for the accused argued that there was a delay of three days in filing the FIR without a good reason; that the accused is a police constable who was on duty at the time of the incident; that the medical report does not show any gunshot wounds on the victim's vital parts, and the type of weapon used is listed as a sharp cutting substance; that the injuries of the other victims are listed as caused by a hard blunt substance; that there was no actual incident, and the complaint was filed due to a dispute over cotton sales; that no witnesses from the local area are listed in the FIR or case; that the offense does not fall under the prohibited clause of Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code; that the accused has connections to a local landlord who belongs to the ruling party, and the complaint may be influenced by this; that the case needs further investigation. Based on these arguments, the counsel requested post-arrest bail for the accused. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the cases of Mir Muhammad v. The State [2024 SCMR 805], Muhammad Ijaz v. The State [2022 SCMR 1271], Muhammad Faisal v. The State and another [2020 2 SCMR 971] and Abd-ur-Razak alias Karo v. The State [2012 MLD 1656].

5. The prosecution argues that the accused are guilty of the crime based on the evidence that they are named in the FIR with specific roles in the crime; that the accused demanded food from the complainant's shop without paying; that the police recovered weapons used in the crime from the accused; that the medical evidence supports the complainant's version of events; that witnesses have corroborated the complainant's story; that the co-accused Hadi Bux inflicted a serious injury on the victim. The prosecution argues that there is no need for further investigation and that the accused has not proven any wrongdoing on the part of the complainant. They request that the bail application be denied.

6. Tentative assessment of record reflects that the accused are named in the FIR with specific roles. The complainant alleges that the accused committed acts of violence, including assault with deadly weapons, resulting in injuries to multiple individuals. The FIR details the accused's actions, including the use of a gun, hatchet, and sticks. Witnesses corroborate the complainant's account, and medical evidence supports the claims of injuries. The motive for the attack is also outlined in the FIR, stemming from a dispute over payment. The injuries sustained by the victims are classified under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), including 337-D and

324. These offenses are non-bailable and carry potential penalties, including imprisonment and fines. Based on the evidence presented, including the FIR, witness statements, medical reports and recovered weapons, there is a prima facie case against the accused. They have not demonstrated any grounds for further inquiry or bail.

7. For the reasons to follow, the captioned bail application is dismissed leaving the trial Court to examine the complainant and injured within two months and if the charge is not framed, the same shall be framed on the date so fixed by the trial Court; however, it is expected that the trial Court will endeavor to comply the directions contained in this case. JK/G-2/Sindh Application dismissed.