MUHAMMAD ALI Versus State Mirza Sarfaraz Ahmed

ORDER

1. Mrs. QAISER IQBAL, J .---Applicant Muhammad Ali son of Jumma Khan seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.151 of 2006 under sections 393/397/109/452/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Mochko at the instance of complainant Ali Raza resident of Gulshan-e-Ghazi with the allegations that unknown culprits duly armed had entered his house, on commotion raised, the complainant's father, Inayat Hussain, mother Parveen, brother Naveed and sister Salma were fired at by culprits as a result whereof they had received injuries, shifted to Civil Hospital for treatment. It is alleged that the culprits sought shelter in the buffaloes pond of Ramzan Kalhoro. On account of encounter with the police, three persons were arrested on the spot. Co-accused Ramzan Kalhoro was also got involved in the commission of the crime, admitted on pre-arrest bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.811 of 2006 vide order, dated 25-9-2006.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that from the last one year, applicant is confined in jail, trial Court has not yet commenced with trial of case. Admittedly nothing was robbed from the complainant's house as depicted in the F.I.R. as it was an attempt to commit robbery, no identification parade was held through the complainant and eye-witnesses of account. It is further contended that applicant has no credentials or antecedents of a robber, therefore, case against the applicant requires further enquiry. In support of the above contentions reliance is placed on the following case-law:--

(1) Ghulam Abbas alias Abbas and others v. The State (PL.D 2005 Karachi 255), wherein it has been held that the delay in each case was to be judged and weighted on its own merits. Inordinate delay if not explained, would amount to abuse of process of law even in cases of capital punishment where prosecution was loath to submit challan, slow in producing witnesses, failed to produce accused without any justification and/or delaying tactics were used by persons other than accused including complainant.

(2) Abdullah alias Manan v. The State (2000 MLD (Karachi) 1608), wherein it has been held that despite lapse of one year challan was not submitted even after submission of challan the applicant was not produced in Court on several dates of hearing, prima facie prosecution did not succeed to connect the offender for robbing the ornaments and valuable articles, therefore, applicant was enlarged on bail.

(3) Muhammad Khalid v. The State (2005 MLD (Lahore) 1423), wherein the applicant was admitted on bail as he had no credentials or antecedents of a dacoit or robber to his accounts no other case of similar nature stood registered against him.

3. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that as a result of firing opened by the applicant and co-accused the inmates of the house were seriously injured.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel at bar.

5. It is borne from the record that the applicant was not put to identification parade during the investigation through injured eye-witnesses who had sustained injuries due to tiring opened by the culprits, the applicant is behind the bars for one year, the trial has not yet commenced, ingredients of commission of robbery or dacoity are not spelled from the F.I.R. The case appears to be of a first offender with no past credentials or antecedents of a dacoit. At this juncture on tentative sifting or the evidence I am of the view that prima facie case is made out for grant of bail in favour of the applicant.

6. Accordingly, the applicant Muhammad Ali is admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one Hundred Thousand Only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the entire satisfaction of the trial Court.

7. Bail application stands disposed of.

8. H.B.T./M-167/K Bail granted.