2008 P Cr (PLP)

NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.

Through this bail application under section 497, Cr.P.C., applicant Hakim Ali Joyo has sought bail in Crime No.6 of 2007 registered at Police Station Daulatpur under section 302, P.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Haji Abdul Ghafoor lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Daulatpur on 28-2-2007, wherein he stated that his father is of 54 years age and they have decoration shop at Shahpur Jehania. On 27-2-2008 when he along with his uncle reached at shop they found Wali Muhammad Joyo, their servant, was causing hatchet injuries to his father while two unknown persons were caught holding him, whom he can identify if see again. On seeing the complainant party the above persons escaped. Thereafter, the complainant came and found many injuries on the person of his father. On inquiry the father of complainant told him that Wali Muhammad caused him such injuries as he used to say him truth and was using harsh language with him. The complainant called up his brother on telephone and after consultation lodged report. After investigation of above crime, applicant was arrested on 11-3-2007 and since then he is in jail. Bail plea of applicant was rejected by the trial Court vide order, dated 1.st April, 2008. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is unexplained delay of 21 hours in lodging the F.I.R. and the name of the applicant is not appearing in the F.I.R. and 161, Cr.P.C. statements and it is not known as to how the applicant was connected with the offence. He further submits that the only allegation against the applicant is holding the deceased when the other accused caused injuries to the deceased. The learned counsel has relied upon the following reported cases:

(1) Hafiz Muhammad Aslam 2006 PCr.LJ 97 (Karachi), (2) Shahid v. State 1994 SCMR 393 and (3) Mehmood Akhtar v. Haji Nazeer Ahmed 1995 SCMR

310. The learned State Counsel has opposed the bail and submits that the applicant was identified by the P.Ws. during identification and no case of further inquiry has been made out. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record made available before me and the judgment cited at Bar. The applicant was attributed the role of getting hold of deceased when co-accused caused hatchet injuries to the deceased. No other overt act has been attributed to the applicant. From the perusal of the police papers it appears that when the applicant was arrested no material was available with the police to connect him with the offence. It appears that he was arrested on the basis of statement made by co-accused which statement is not sufficient to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. The learned State Counsel after going through the police record has argued that there is no recovery from the applicant and except the identification parade, there is no other material available on record to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. In the reported case of Mehmood Akhtar v. Haji Nazeer Ahmed 1995 SCMR 310, the Honourable Supreme Court relying upon the earlier judgment reported as Basharat Hussain v. Ghulam Hussain and others 1978 SCMR 357 granted bail to accused charged with the offence of facilitating the murder of the deceased. From the above, it is clear that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant has committed a non-bailable offence falling under the prohibitory clause of section 493(1), P.P.C. For the above reasons, by short order dated 7-7-2008 bail was allowed to the applicants. H.B.T./H-17/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.