WAHEED vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.---By this order I intend to dispose of Criminal Bail Application No,98 of 2006 in a case bearing F.I.R. No,73 of 2005 registered at Police Station Waleed for offences under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 27-2-2006.

2. ' The prosecution story as enunciated in the F.I.R. Is reproduced herein-below :-- "The complaint is that today in the morning, I, my father Niaz Ali aged about 50 years, our relatives Ashraf son of Arbab Ali and Haji Khadim son of Muhammad Usman while boarding on motorcycle were coming towards Larkana with some work, as such at about 9-30 a.m. Reached on Ratodero road near office of plots of Qurban Ali Abbasi, accused Maroon son of Dur Muhammad having pistol in his hand, Abdul Ghani son of Dur Muhammad with pistol, Asghar son of Gul Khan by caste Shahani resident of Gajjanpur Chowk armed with gun, Ghulam Hussain son of Haji Anwer he was having gun in his hand, Waheed son of Muhammad Attal resident of Thoof Chousool having pistol in his hand were standing, who on seeing us, accused Maroon made straight pistol fire upon us which hit my father and rest of accused with intention to commit murder made direct fires, as such we raised cries, on our cries all the accused ran away towards city side. Thereafter I saw that my father Niaz Ali had fire injury from backside and he was bleeding, I and my relatives Ashraf and Haji Khadim brought him to casualty hospital for first aid where he died. Then I by leaving my relatives over dead body for guarding, now have come and report that due to old Murderous enmity, accused Maroon and other accused have committed murder of my father".

3. ' The investigation followed and in due course the applicants were sent up to stand trial in the competent Court of law.

4. ' I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

5. 'It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the old murderous enmity between the parties has been admitted by complainant himself in the F.I.R. Hence in the background of old murderous enmity the false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out; the allegation against the present applicant is that of general ineffective firing upon the complainant party. It has further been contended that as per post-mortem report of deceased, he had only one (through and through) injury on his person, which has specifically been assigned to co-accused Maroon and not by the present applicant. Lastly learned counsel has contended that the question of sharing common intention and vicarious liability would be determined at the time of trial. In these circumstances, learned counsel has prayed that the case of the present applicant requires further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

6. ' Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo learned State Counsel conceded the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and raised no objection for the grant of bail to the applicant..

7. ' I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

8. ' The role played by the present applicant is of ineffective firing upon the complainant party and it has also been admitted by the complainant party that there is old murderous enmity between the parties and in that situation the false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out and coupled with no objection raised by the learned State Counsel for the grant of bail to the present applicant, I admit the applicant on bail provided he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

9. ' Criminal Bail Application No,98 of 2006 stands disposed of.