MUHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN Versus THE STATE
ORDER
1. This is an application for bail on behalf of applicant, Muhammad Nizamuddin.
2. The case against the applicant and other accused under section 302/307/34, P.P.C., is pending for trial in the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge (West), Karachi, and bail application of applicant has been rejected by an order dated 21‑1‑1988. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as under:‑‑
3. "That on 27‑8‑1987, al 6‑00 p.m. Complainant, Manzoorul Hasan reprimanded some children who were playing in front of his house. At about 11 o'clock in the same night, Alcem alias Michal and Abdul Bari came to his house in yellow Motor Car and called him to which Manzoor came out and saw the Car and two other persons also who were armed with revolver, knives and battons. Due to fear, he returned back to his house to which those people abused him. He asked inmates to bring his gun. In the meanwhile the Car left that place. At that time, his all the three sons were out of the house. Masood came back and enquired from the Complainant to which he told him that nothing has happened in the house. He went out and after a little while Manzoorul Hasan came out of house and the boys' of the vicinity told him that those who had come to attack had severely beaten Fakhar, Masroor and Zafar and Masood and used fire‑arms, knives and battons. He was informed that Oamar and one Manzoor had seen the incident. He came at the Hospital and found Zafar and Fakhar in the Operation Theatre while Masroor and Masood were in the Dressing Room."
4. I have heard Mr. M. Ismail Kasim for the applicant. It is contended by the learned counsel that name of the applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. and he also sustained injuries and also co‑accused-received injuries at the hands of the Complainant Party. He has referred to the case reported in P L D 1968 S C 349 and submitted 'that point of aggression is yet to be decided and case is fit for further enquiry.
5. Mr. Imam Bux Shaikh for State has opposed the bail and submitted that there is specific allegation against the applicant for causing knife injuries.
6. Complainant, Manzoor is not an eyewitness of the incident but he stated that the incident was witnessed by Qamar Manzoor and others. Zafar Hasan and Fakhar Hasan died due to the injuries. 'lhe injuries on Fakhar were by a sharp weapon and fire‑arm. There are two injured persons namely, Masood and Masroor who sustained injuries by a sharp‑edged weapon as well as blunt weapon. There are three eye‑witnesses namely, injured Masood, Masroor and Najamul Hasan who fully supported the case and assigned the part to the applicant for causing knife injuries. The applicant sustained injuries but the learned counsel appearing for him stated that these injuries were caused as he fell down from the Scooter. The injured accused has not taken the plea of right of self‑defence. Even otherwise this is not the case of free fight. The case is of highhandedness where two sons of the complainant died and three persons sustained injuries. The bail applications of co‑accused, Sadar Din and S~A eel Ahmed were dismissed on merits by this Court by an order dated 23‑2‑1988 wile bail application of Salahuddin for anticipatory bail was also dismissed by an order dated 13‑12‑1987. The case of the applicant is identical and there is a specific allegation that he was armed with a knife and caused injuries to the deceased as well as to the injured. Application is dismissed.
7. S.G.D./M‑543/K Bail declined.