NAZAR alias NAZAR AHMED vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---By this application, the applicant has prayed for releasing him on bail in case/ Crime No,44 of 2007 Police Station Dadu, District Dadu under sections 459/457, 380, 337- H(ii), P.P.C. Read with section 14 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

2. ' Brief facts as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that on 15-2-2007 complainant Ghulam Hussain along with his other inmates were sleeping in the Viranda of their house when on some noise, he and his father woke up, saw the accused persons and identified them to be Nazar Suhag armed with DBBL gun, Wahid Bux Khhushik armed with KK type rifle and three unidentified persons, out of them one was carrying rifle and two were having hatchets in their hands. The complainant party raised cries and went behind them on which accused Nazar Suhag straightly fired from gun upon them, which hit Muhammad Jumman the father of complainant who fell down and remaining culprits made aerial firing. On the cries and gun shot reports P.Ws. Namely Muhammad Ismail and Ghulam Rasool came running there and identified two of the culprits named above being their co-villagers. It is alleged that one cow was stolen by the accused persons. Complainant thereafter took his injured father to Police Station Dadu, wherefrom after getting the letter the proceeded the Civil Hospital Dadu and subsequently injured was referred to Hyderabad Hospital for treatment. The foot-prints of accused persons, and cow were tracked by official foot trackers. The complainant lodged the F.I.R. As stated above.

3. ' The bail plea of the applicant was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 13-5-2008 on the ground that accused has allegedly fired from his gun which directly hit to the father of complainant and overt act of the accused is visible and clear.

4. ' The trial counsel for the applicant submits that there is unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. No recovery of cattle and crime weapon from the applicant, no recovery of empty bullets or cartridges from the place of incident he then submits that according to medical report the alleged injury was caused at the back side below shoulder of Muhammad Jumman which clearly shows that the allegation of straight firing is not correct. He submits that according to F.I.R. Co-villagers have also fired from their weapons and possibility of causing injury by fires of co-villagers can not be ruled out. He then submits that section 459, P.P.C. Is not applicable as the house was not trespassed for the reason that there is no boundary wall of the house.

5. ' The learned State counsel opposed the bail on the ground that specific role of causing fire-arm injury has been assigned to the applicant in a promptly lodged F.I.R. He, however, conceded that in the circumstances of the case section 459 is not applicable and the applicability of section 14 of Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 will be decided after recording of the evidence.

6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. ' The, allegation against the applicant is direct firing and causing fire-arm injury to the father of complainant. The applicant was nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role. The ocular evidence as well as medical evidence is available on record. At bail stage deeper appreciation of evidence is neither permissible nor warranted and at this stage it cannot be determined whether the injuries were not caused by the applicant. From the tentative assessment of the material available on record it can be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant has committed an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

8. ' For the above reasons the bail applicant is dismissed.