MUHARRAM ALI and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, who were charged in Crime No. 131 of 2005 at Police Station Badin for allegedly causing firearm injuries to two individuals, Mitho and Ilyas. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicants were entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, given the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the case. Upon review of the material on record, the Court observed that the injuries sustained by the victims were not serious in nature and were not located on vital parts of the body. Furthermore, the Court noted the existence of enmity between the parties as evident from the F.I.R. and the fact that no empty shell casings were recovered from the scene of the incident. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the applicants required further inquiry. The Court granted bail to the applicants, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds, thereby affirming the principle that where the prosecution's case lacks prima facie gravity, bail should be granted pending further investigation.
- Does the absence of injuries on vital parts of the body constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is the existence of enmity between parties a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding on a bail application?
- Does the failure to recover empty shell casings from the scene of the crime warrant the grant of bail pending trial?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---The applicants are seeking bail in Crime No,131 of 2005, Police Station, Badin registered against them along with co-accused persons on the allegations of causing fire-arm injuries to Mitho and Ilyas as per report lodged by complainant Ahmed.
2. ' Bail is pressed on the grounds that the injuries allegedly sustained by the applicants call for punishment of three years, there was no intention to commit murder of any body and that the applicants have been falsely implicated due to enmity.
3. ' Learned ,State counsel has not seriously opposed the bail.
4. ' The arguments have been considered and the material placed on record has been perused.
5. ' Evidently, the injured persons were not caused serious injuries and that those are not sustained on the vital part of the body. The enmity is apparent from the contents of the F.I.R. No empties were secured from the place of Vardat. In the circumstances, the case of the applicants calls for further inquiry.
6. ' The applicants are accordingly granted bail in the sum of Rs,100,000 (one hundred thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.