2004 PLP 2015 (YLR)

Abdul Rasool Abbasi for Applicants. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo for the State. Applicants Mansoor son of Ahmed and Abdul Hakeem alias Abdul Aziz alias Abdul Karim son of Haji Khan have approached this Court for grant of bail in Crime No.04 of 2004, Police Station K.N. Shah under sections 302, 504 and 34, P.P.C. The applicants have approached tire trial Court, who has dismissed their bail application vide order dated 5‑3‑2004. The facts of the matter are at one Ghulam Hyder son of Haji Karim Bux Qambrani lodged his complaint on 3‑1‑2004 at about 2230 hours, alleging that he alongwith his nephew Aijaz Ahmed and cousin Mir reside in separate house having common compound and he and Aijaz Ahmed work as Hari. Sabir and others suspected Aijaz Ahmed of committing theft and they asked Sabir to hold a Faisla. On 3‑1‑2004 the complainant and Mir were present in the house and Aijaz Ahmed was standing in the street when at about 8‑30 p.m. they heard cries of Aijaz Ahmed and on going out' and they saw in electric bulb light Sabir, Mansoor, Gulzar and Abdul Karim, out of them Sabir was armed with gun in his hand and rest were armed with hatchets were giving abuses Aijaz Ahmed and dragging him to the courtyard of the house of Lal Bux and in their presence Sabir fired at Aijaz Ahmed and accused persons went way. Aijaz Ahmed died of the gun shot. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that no overt act is assigned to the applicants; no recovery has been made and the deceased had died in the courtyard of the house of Lal Bux and not in the applicants and the applicants were merely present at the scene of incident. He has further stated that while in the complaint accused Sabir is alleged to have fired at the deceased while in the statements of P.Ws., Gulzar is alleged to have fired at the deceased. He stated that the case is of two versions. He has further contended that the deceased has died from one injury, which is supported by medical evidence. He relied upon 1999 SCMR 1360. Learned State Counsel did not oppose the grant, of bail and concedes that the case is of two versions and that no overt act to the applicants has been assigned in the commission of the crime. He also states that one empty was recovered from the site of incident. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have gone through the record. Apparently, it seems that no overt act has been assigned to the applicants and only Sabir is accused of causing fire‑arm injury to the deceased Aijaz Ahmed. The complainant alleges one gun shot to the deceased, which is supported by medical evidence and also by recovery of one empty. The witnesses in their statements has however, implicated Gulzar of causing fire‑arm injury to the deceased. In my view the applicants have succeeded in making out a case for grant of bail, as no overt act is assigned to them and it is specifically alleged in the complaint that Sabir has caused the gun shot to the Aijaz Ahmed who died. The applicants are alleged to the armed with hatchets and medical evidence does not, show injury on the deceased by hatchet. In the circumstances, this bail application is allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. One hundred thousand each and P.R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M‑63/K Bail granted.