1989SCMR231 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 12th September, 1988. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, charged of the offences under sections 302, 307 and 380/34, P.P.C., seeks leave to appeal against the Order of the High Court of Sind dated 7th of March, 1988, whereby the rejection of his Bail Application by the Sessions Judge was upheld. The petitioner is charged alongwith one Muhammad Yousuf for the offences disclosed above resulting in the deaths of two persons. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 6th of May, 1987 he had fired revolver at Taj Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad, ultimately causing thereby death of one of them while Yousuf the companion of the petitioner had given knife blows to Roobi causing her instantaneous death. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith Yousuf allegedly searched the house and took away gold ornaments and cash Rs. 2,

500. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the Bail Application on 13th of February, 1988 observing as hereunder:‑‑ "The name of the accused/applicant in the F.I.R. and role has been assigned to the applicant/accused. He has fired from his‑ pistol which hit to the complainant on his head. The recovery of revolver has also been made from the applicant on pointation of the accused/applicant Tabbasum Jamil. The incident has taken place at broad daylight at 10.00 a.m. The F.I.R. has been lodged after half an hour i.e. 10.30 a.m. The offence is punishable with death or imprisonment of life, I, therefore, reject the bail application of the applicant/accused Tabbasum Jamil son of Nadir Khan. The High Court also denied him the bail, observing as hereunder:‑‑ "There is direct allegation against the applicant came duly armed with revolver in the house of complainant and fired at two persons namely complainant and Taj Muhammad. He was with Yousuf who according to the prosecution gave injuries to Rubby who died at the spot and Yousaf was caught red‑handed. The delay has properly been explained as complainant took Rubby to hospital and Usman brought injured Taj Muhammad in the Jinnah Hospital. Even otherwise delay of two hours only as injured were removed to hospital for medical aid. The prosecution case is that one broken handle of revolver of applicant was secured from the Wardat and accused also produced pistol with broken handle. There are four independent eye‑witnesses. Prima facie there is sufficient evidence and there are no reasonable grounds that applicant is not guilty of the charge. The application is dismissed." The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed this Application for Bail on the ground that the petitioner had no concern with the complainant, the injured or the deceased. He has been implicated only on account of his friendship with Yousuf who could possibly have a grievance. It has also been urged that the arrest of the petitioner from Hyderabad when the occurrence had taken place at Karachi makes the case against him and his presence in Karachi at the given hour doubtful. We find that all aspects of the submissions now being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have been attended to by the two Courts There is indeed a direct charge against him. In view of the absence of enmity, there does not appear any reason why he should have been falsely implicated. No case for bail is made out at this stage on the material on record and I g the petitioner was rightly refused bail. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.Y.H./T‑29/S Leave to appeal refused.