2014 PLP 414 (MLD)

SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.

Bail has been sought on behalf of applicant Moazzam alias Muhaze Rind who has been booked in case Crime No. 9 of 2012 registered at Police Station Chambar under sections 324, 353 and 34 P.P.C.

2. The allegations against the applicants levelled by the complainant A.S.-I. Abdul Khaliq Jarwar are that on 12-2-2012 they proceeded to conduct the investigation of Crime No. 20 of 2012 registered under section 365-A P.P.C. along with police party and received information about presence of the applicants and his accomplices. On seeing the police party they started straight firing; in result of which P.C. Ghulab Khan received fire shot injury at the right leg and fell down. In defence, the police party also started firing and one co-accused sustained injury and fell down, however, remaining three made their escape good on 125(sic) Motorcycle. Haji Abdul Kareem Bux was having bullet injury who disclosed the name of Burdi Noorduddin son of Abdul Hakeem and Moazzam son of Mitho (present applicant) and one unknown person. Thereafter they recovered one pistol of .30 bore and one empty magazine lying there and after completion of usual investigation returned at police station and lodged F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel representing the applicant inter alia contended that the applicant was having inimical terms with Haji Abdul Kareem who has disclosed name of applicant due to mentioned reason. It is next contended that there is long chequered history showing the animosity which depicts from the discrete inquiry of one Sirajuddin Lashari Supervising Police Officer Qasimabad Hyderabad wherein he has categorically stated that seven cases mentioned in the inquiry report were registered against the petitioner and others, due to political adversary. It is next contended that the main case in which police party allegedly proceeded to arrest the applicants and others the applicant Moazzam has already been admitted to bail by this court by order dated 8-8-2012 (Criminal Bail Application No.D-20 of 2012). Learned counsel further emphasized that the interim medical certificate available on record (pages 215 and 217) reveals that there is difference of about 2/3 hours of duration of injuries in between injured Gulab and Haji Karim Bux which shows that both the injured did not receive the injury at the same time. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court towards the letter of medical superintendent available at page 213 of the file which shows that injured Gulab did not appear for his final Medico-legal certificate. However, injured Haji Abdul Kareem received simple injuries on his person. Learned counsel urged that no empty has been recovered from the place of occurrence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. To support his contentions, reliance has been placed on the case of Sher Muhammad v. The State (2004 YLR 121) wherein no specific allegations were made to cause injuries sustained by the same deceased, the court had admitted the applicant on bail. In another case of Yar Muhammad v. The State (2004 SCMR 864) the court has granted bail where there were allegations of general nature against the applicant. The third citation relied upon by learned counsel is pertaining to the case of Jaffer and others v. The State (1980 SCMR 784) wherein bail was granted in a murder case merely on the ground that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants. Learned counsel contended that the police at the behest of complainant party as well as ruling party caused murder of brother of Hari of said Zamindar Lakhi Rind but F.I.R. has not been registered against the complainant party being influential one, which depicts from the series of cases registered against the applicants and others. It is next contended that co-accused Aqib who was joined later on has been admitted to bail by the Trial Court by order dated 8-8-2012. Conversely, Syed Meeral Shah, learned D.P.G. though admitted that no specific role is assigned to applicant/accused but contended that name of the applicant transpires in the F.I.R., therefore, it appears that he was having common intention for committing the alleged offence. Be that as it may, apparently, learned counsel for applicant has shown sufficient reason and plausible cause, showing the inimical terms in between both the parties and that no specific role of causing bullet injury has been assigned to applicant and the remaining contentions of learned counsel have also not been rebutted by the prosecution, therefore, in light of the citations relied upon by the learned counsel those are squarely applicable in the circumstances of present case, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. MWA/M-180/K Bail granted.