PATHAN vs The STATE

ORDER

MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.---The applicant accused has assailed the order dated 26.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Matiari, whereby he dismissed the bail application of the applicant in Crime No, 137/2012, Police Station Saeedabad for offences punishable under Sections 302,324 and 34, P.P.C.

2. Prosecution story is that on 6.10.2012 complainant Jan Muhammad, his nephew Muharram, cousin Abdul Karim and one Hazoor Bux were returning from Sessions Court, Hyderabad by a bus.

At about 4.30 p.m. When their bus reached near Kamal Gahoti, they saw one blue colour Mehran Car and three persons on motorcycle coming in front of bus. The accused persons got down from the car. The complainant party identified them to be Mir Muhammad having Kalashinkov, Yar Muhammad, Pathan and Ghulam Rasool having T.T. Pistols, while the accused, who came on motorcycle were unknown, but they had also T.T. Pistols in their hands. The accused persons while standing at back gate of bus started firing which hit Muharram kaka and other passengers, namely, Mukhtiar, Gulloo and Mohan. The accused persons got Muharram kaka down from the bus and again fired which hit him and he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, accused persons went away in car and on motorcycle. In the meantime, police reached there and they took dead body of Muharram and injured persons to Taluka Hospital. The medical officer after giving first aid referred injured to LMCH, Hyderabad, but Mukhtiar also succumbed to the injuries. The complainant party took the dead body and after burial went at police station where he registered the FIR.

3. Learned counsel for applicant/ accused contended that the FIR was registered after two days of the incident and there is previous enmity between the parties, therefore, his false implication cannot be ruled out. He further contended that there is general allegation against the accused persons and no specific injury has been assigned to him. He also contended that injured PW Gulloo has filed affidavit before the learned trial Court in which he has exonerated the applicant/accused.

He also submitted that place of vardhat was visited by the police on 8.10.2012, but nothing was recovered, as such, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused. In support of his arguments, he relied upon 2004 PCr.LJ 1843, 2010 SCM R 1178 and 2011 SCM R 1543,

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.G opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant/accused is nominated in the FIR and role of firing at the deceased and injured persons is attributed to him and that 22 empties of Kalashnikov and 14 empties of pistols were recovered from the place of vardhat and that pistol was also recovered from the possession of the applicant, therefore, according to him, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. Heard and perused the material available on record meticulously.

6. Perusal of record reflects that this is a case in which two persons have lost their lives and two persons have sustained injuries at the hands of accused. Admittedly, this is a day time incident and parties are known to each other, therefore, there is no question of mistaken identity.

Furthermore, the applicant/accused along with others is nominated in the FIR and specific role of firing at the deceased and injured persons is attributed to them. P.Ws in their 161 and 164, Cr.P.C.

Statements have supported the version of the complainant given by him in FIR. The medical evidence also corroborates the ocular evidence. Record further reflects that the version of complainant is corroborated by recovery of empties from the place of incident and recovery of pistol from applicant/accused, therefore, there appears reasonable grounds to believe that applicant/accused has committed the offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, hence it comes within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. So far as the delay in FIR is concerned it is fully explained by the complainant in the FIR that after the incident he took the injured persons and dead body to hospital from where injured persons were referred to LMCH, Hyderabad, he got post mortem of deceased and after burial he went to Police Station where he registered the FIR.

8. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that the applicant/accused has failed to make out a case for bail at this stage. Consequently, instant bail application is dismissed. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

9. It is pertinent to mention her that facts and circumstances of the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.