HUSSAIN Versus State

ORDER

1. AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.--- The applicant ,is facing trial in Crime No.9 of 2007, registered with Police Station Airport, under section 337-A(i), A(ii), F(i), 147, 148 and 114, P,P.C. along with other nine co-accused. All the co-accused except the applicant were granted 'interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, which bail before arrest applications of the other co-accused are still pending. However, the applicant was arrested on 8-4-2007 and the recovery of hatchet was effected from him on 18-4-2007, 14 days after his arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. do not substantiate to the allegations of injuries with hatchet and are belied by the medical report as the injuries on the person of the complainant and his family members, according to the medical report appear to have been caused by blunt weapon and not with sharp weapon. He further submits that no specific role was assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R. and the learned trial Court was in error in refusing bail to the applicant on this ground. The learned State counsel on the other hand does not oppose the bail application inter alia on the ground that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences alleged to have been caused by the applicant with other co-accused do not exceed five years and there -is no hatchet injury caused either to the complainant' or any of his family members. Complainant present states that if the applicant is released on bail he would cause physical harm either to him or to his family members.

3. I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. The order of the learned trial Court declining the bail to the applicant was contrary to record inasmuch as prima facie the medical report does not support the contents of the F.I.R. as far as the inflicting of the injuries with sharp weapon, by way of hatchet, is concerned. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R. It-is a case of further enquiry to ascertain as to whether the applicant joined hand with other co-accused in causing injuries to the complainant and his family members by using hatchet allegedly recovered from him after 14 days. The applicant was arrested on 8-4-2007, and on completion of the investigation, had been remanded to judicial custody. The maximum punishment for the injuries alleged to have been attributed to the applicant and or to other co-accused do not attract the prohibitory clause. The. dispute between the parties appears to be on the plot and the complainant in the F.I.R. has implicated ten persons. The apprehension of the complainant that on release on bail, the applicant would cause physical harm either to-him or to his family members is also without substance, as beside the applicant there are other nine co-accused, who were on interim bail and till date no complaint of causing harm was made by the complainant either to the police or to the trial Court.

4. Under these circumstances I for the aforesaid reasons grant bail to the applicant subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to 'the satisfaction of trial Court. The complainant however, would be at liberty to approach the trial Court in, case after the release of the applicant, he in any manner abuses the concession of the bail.

5. H.B.T./H-16/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.