JURIO Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. By this order I propose to dispose of criminal bail application filed on behalf of applicant Jurio by caste Chhutto in a case bearing Crime No. 123 of 1984 of Police Station Warrah for an offence under sections 307/34, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned 1 st Assistant Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 26‑3‑2003.

2. The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on the eventful day i.e. 17‑10‑1984 complainant appeared at Police Station Warrah and lodged an F.I.R.; the details whereof go to show as under:‑‑

3. "Complainant Sijawal alongwith his Puphat P.W. Abdul Khalique was returning to his village after seeing the drama when they reached near village at about 9‑30 p.m., behind Kot of Haji Muhammad Khan Mughal, they saw three persons and were identified by them to be accused Jurio armed with gun, Umer and Deedar armed with hatchets and they all gave 'Hakal' to the complainant party and accused Jurio fired from his gun which hit complainant on his left arm and left and right waist, he fell down. The accused armed with hatchets came towards complainant party but P.W. Abdul Khalique ran away and raised cries which attracted P.Ws. Muhammad Khan, Abdul Ghafar and other villagers while raising Hakals, seeing them the accused persons fled away towards northern side. On enquiry the complainant narrated the above facts to the P.Ws. then complainant went to police station and lodged the F.I.R. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that about 2/3 weeks prior to this, incident a quarrel had taken place over hand pump which the complainant party had given blows to Dhani Bux and due to that revenge they had fired upon the complainant and his Puphat with intention to commit their murder. "

4. The investigation followed and in due course the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the competent Court of law.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It has been contended by the teamed counsel for the applicant that the case against his client is false who has been involved in the back ground of enmity and suspicion. It has further been contended that as according to F.I.R. applicant Jurio was disclosed to be armed with gun and was alleged to have fired at the complainant but there is no medical evidence in order to substantiate the claim of the complainant. Moreso the applicant has remained behind the bars for nearly two years but there is no likelihood of the case being concluded in the foreseeable future. It has also been argued that two co‑accused namely Umer and Deedar during the course of investigation were let off by the police who were disclosed to be armed with hatchets which will adversely reflect on the version of the prosecution story as a whole. Moreso despite several efforts being made by the concerned Medical Officer, the alleged injuries could not be traced out. On all these scores it has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a fit case where the applicant Jurio by caste Chhuto could be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel has referred the following case‑law in support p of his contentions:‑‑

6. 2003 PCr.LJ 73.

7. 2003 MLD 19.

8. 1989 PCr.LJ 244.

9. 1985 SCMR 382.

10. 2003 MLD 1191.

11. Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio learned Assistant A.‑G. appearing on behalf of the State concedes to the legal position but raised objection for the grant of bail.

12. For what it has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant appears to be more weighty in comparison to the points raised by Ali Azhar Tunio, learned State Counsel and consequently I allow this application and it. is directed that the applicant Jurio son of Ghulam Qadir by caste Chhuto shall be released on bail provided he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

13. Criminal Bail Application No.225 of 2003 stands disposed of.

14. H.B.T./J‑56/K Bail granted.