DATERDINO and 3 others vs THE STATE
This criminal bail application arises out of an attack wherein the applicants were charged with ineffective firing and armed assault over a land dispute, while their co-accused was already acquitted after trial. The core legal question is whether post-arrest bail should be granted to accused persons assigned the role of ineffective firing and non-injurious armed assault coupled with abscondence, particularly where the co-accused has been acquitted and a compromise has been reached. The Sindh High Court allowed the application and held that where firearm shots proved ineffective, no injuries were inflicted despite opportunities, and the complainant compromised the matter, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The key principle laid down is that mere abscondence does not bar the grant of bail when the principal allegations require further inquiry and co-accused facing similar or identical roles have been acquitted or the complainant has compromised.
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused assigned the role of ineffective firing and non-injurious armed assault?
- Does the mere allegation of abscondence preclude an accused from obtaining bail when the case falls within the scope of further inquiry?
- What is the effect of a compromise by the complainant on the grant of bail to the accused?
ORDER
1. ' Allegations against the applicants are that they, including the acquitted accused Bilawal attacked the complainant party on account of disputed over lands and applicant Daterdino fired from his gun in order to kill them, but the fires did not hit anybody. The others, who were armed with hatchets also raised their hatchets, but they did not cause injury to anybody. Bilawal was arrested and challaned while the applicants were shown absconders. After recording evidence at the trial, Bilawal was acquitted by the trial Court on 4-11-2002. The applicants were arrested on 29-10-2003.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State Counsel, the latter concedes to grant of bail.
3. ' Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto contended that the role assigned to applicant Daterdino is of ineffective firing whereas the others who were allegedly armed with hatchets did not cause any injury to the complainant party, the case on the face of it, calls for further inquiry. In that event he submitted that the only allegation of abscondence would not come in the way of grant of bail. He relied upon the cases Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul 1985 SCM R 382, Sharbat v. State 2003 M LD 1191 and Ali Nawaz v. State 1995 PCr.LJ 1316.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State Counsel looking to the facts of the case and in view of the law cited by Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, conceded to the grant of bail.
5. ' The principles enunciated in 1985 SCM R 382 as also in 2003 M LD 1191 and 1995 PCr.LJ 1316 lend support to the case of applicants as not only the fires proved ineffective, but in a situation where the complainant party was lying on the ground and the applicants were armed with hatchets yet they did not inflict any injury to them with their hatchets, their role as regards murderous assault would require further inquiry. Moreover, when the complainant party fell on ground, even applicant Daterdino could conveniently aim at the target by making repeated fires, but none has received any fire-arm injury. There is yet an interesting feature appearing in the case, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant whose deposition was recorded during the trial gave a straightforward version saying that he has compromised the matter with the accused and he has no objection, if the accused and the present applicants are acquitted.
6. ' In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. The applicants be released on bail on furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 each and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.