SHABBIR HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE
ORDER
1. The case against the applicants under Section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. and 13‑D of the Arms Ordinance, is pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Larkana. They applied for bail which was declined by the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 28‑7‑1987.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 18‑5‑1987 at sun‑rise time, complainant, Mashooq Ali, alongwith, his cousin, Laldino and Haji Siddiq, were going to attend the Court of Sessions at Larkana. Mohammad Naseer, father of complainant, was also with !hem. When they reached near sand dunes at Bhurgri Station, they saw Mohammad Rafiq, Nusrat, Wahid Ali, Usman, Mour, Rab Nawaz, Moula Buy, Bashir and Kazi, all Chandios by caste and residents of Ghulam Chandia, Taluka Shahdadkot. Wahid Ali and Usman had rifles while rest were armed with guns. They challenged and all fired which hit Laldino. Complainant, his father Mohammad Naseer and Haji Siddiq took shelter in the sand dunes. Accused ran away. Laldino went unconscious due to injuries on abdomen, back, right arm and other parts of the body. Complainant went and lodged the report at Police Station Shahdadkot.
3. Mr. Mohammad Ibrahim Memon, appeared for the applicants, contended that there is exaggeration as number of injuries is less than the assailants. It is argued that it is not known as to whose bullet hit the deceased Laldino as there is only general allegation of firing against all the applicants. He has referred to the cases reported in P L D 1968 S C 349. and 1980 S C M R 784.
4. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Manghi, learned Assistant Advocate‑General, has opposed the bail and submitted that injuries caused to deceased Laldino are with rifle as well as with gunshot and there is a direct allegation that all accused fired at Laldino. It is contended that this is a daylight incident and all accused were clearly identified.
5. The incident took place at sunrise time on 18‑5‑1987, and report was lodged on the same day at 7‑00 a.m. Hence there is no delay in lodging the report. The names of all the accused are given in the F.I.R. and it is alleged that they challenged and fired at Laldino. According to post‑mortem report the following injuries were found on deceased Laldino, on the various parts of his body:
(1) One surgical stitched wound, 17 cm, in midline of front of abdomen, 11 cm below xi‑phi sternum.
(2) One wound of surgical drain, 1 cm diameter, in right side of lower abdomen, 27 cm below right nipple.
(3) One lacerated punctured wound, 1 cm diameter inverted margin, on anterior side of right lower chest, 8 cm below and medial to right nipple. (Entry).
(4) One lacerated punctured wound, I cm diameter, 8 cm below and medial to left nipple, inverted margins (wound of exit).
(5) One lacerated punctured wound, 1 cm diameter, inverted margin, on lateral side of upper part of right upper arm, 28 cm above right elbow joint.
(6) One lacerated punctured wound, 1 cm diameter, inverted margin on top. of right shoulder, 7 cm above injury No. 5.
(7) One lacerated punctured wound, 1 cm diameter, inverted margin, on lateral side of right lower chest, 17 cm below posterior axillary fold (entry).
6. The nature of injuries as stated above are such that prima facie, it cannot be said that injuries are result of one. or two fires and applicants are not guilty of the offence punishable with death. Names of the prosecution witnesses appear in the F.I.R. The facts of the case cited by Mr. Memon are different. In the case 1 reported in 1980 S C M R 784, the facts are that there were counter‑cases and individual liability was considered. In the present case, there is specific allegation supported by the medical evidence and other circumstances. As stated above, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for bail. Application is dismissed.
7. S.A./S‑165/K Bail refused.