AYAZ ALI Versus State

ORDER

1. MAQBOOL AHMED AWAN, J .---The applicant has applied for grant of bail in Crime No. 225 of 2008 of Police Station Kotri for offence under sections 324, 504, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 5-6-2008 at 4-30 p.m., the complainant appeared at Police Station Kotri and lodged the F. I. R. stating therein that a drainage line was being constructed by the Government besides their house upon which, yesterday Ayaz Ali, the present applicant objected that he would not allow to construct the drainage line and had also quarrelled with the brother of complainant namely Muhammad Ramzan and also threatened him for dire-consequences. Regarding the incident, the complainant alleged that today when the drainage line was being constructed and accused Ayaz Sahito came out of his house, the uncle of complainant Abdul Majeed went to Ayaz and stated that since the drainage line was being constructed by Government, he should not raise any objection upon which the accused became angry and went inside his house. The complainant further contended that he along with his bother Ramzan and uncle Abdul Majeed proceeded towards Town Committee to inform about the matter and when at about 1000 hours, accused Ayaz Ali armed with country made pistol and accused Saleh alias Karo armed with country made pistol came and abused the complainant party and challenged that they would not be spared today. According to complainant while saying so, accused Ayaz Ali in order to commit their murder, issued straight fire from his pistol which fire hit the brother of complainant Ramzan, who fell down on the ground and became unconscious and accused persons while abusing started proceeding towards their houses. The complainant further narrated that on hearing the fire-arm reports, his wife Mst. Shamim came out of the house and accused Muhammad Saleh straight fired upon her in order to commit her murder and pellets of the fire hit on the lower side of his abdomen and right foot and accused left the place went to their house while abusing. According to complainant, he and his uncle immediately took Ramzan and Mst. Shamim to Police Station, Kotri, obtained the letter for treatment, went to Taluka Hospital Kotri from where his brother Ramzan was referred to Lumh Hyderabad and the Doctors admitted him in the hospital. The complainant, thereafter, appeared at Police Station and lodged the report.

3. The police during course of investigation arrested the accused, let off co-accused Muhammad Saleh alias Karo and only challaned the present applicant/accused.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has argued that applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by the complainant party on account of enmity; that the police with ulterior motive .and mala fide intention in collusion with the complainant party has applied section 324, P.P.C.; that applicant has not repeated the fire and from that it appears that if it was intention on the part of applicant to commit the murder of injured Ramzan, he should have repeated the same; that the case of applicant is at par with co-accused Muhammad Saleh who allegedly fired upon Mst. Shamim, the wife of the complainant with pistol, has been let off by police and placed his name in Column No.2 of the challan; that complainant till today not filed any application for joining the said Muhammad Saleh as accused in the case; that from the place of Wardat only one empty was secured by police; that blood-stained earth was not secured by police from the place of Wardat; that applicant/accused is in custody since 24-6-2008 and till today the charge has not been framed by the learned trial Court. He in support of his contentions, relied upon the cases reported as under:--

(1) Parial v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 1212).

(2) Muhammad Mumtaz v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1875).

(3) Noor-ur-Rehman v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 1603).

(4) Muhammad Ahmed v. The State (2005 YLR 661).

5. Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Siddiqui, has opposed the application for grant of bail on the ground that name of accused transpires in the F.I.R. with specific role; that case of co-accused Muhammad Saleh is on different footing who has been let off by police; that recovery of pistol has been effected from the present applicant. In support of their contentions, they have placed reliance upon the following cases:--

(1) Dildar Baig v. The State (1998 SCMR 358).

(2) Arshad v. The State and another (1996 SCMR 1270).

(3) Amjad Jawed v. The State (PLD 2007 Karachi 336).

6. I have heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record so also the law relied upon by both the parties.

7. No doubt in this case, co-accused Muhammad Saleh alias Karo was also armed with pistol and has caused the injury to Mst. Shamim, the wife of complainant and the said injury sustained by Mst. Shamim on her foot, is the non-vital part of the body, whereas the present applicant caused injury to P.W. Muhammad Ramzan on his back side of chest which is vital part of the body, therefore, the case of applicant is not said to be at par with co-accused Muhammad Saleh alias Karo. The offence said to have committed by applicant/accused would fall under section 337-D, P.P.C. which is punishable for 10 years and falls within the prohibition contained under section 497, Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the recovery of weapon has been effected from the applicant and one bullet was also secured by police from the place of occurrence. All this shows that there appear reasonable grounds to connect the applicant/accused in the commission of offence. The law relied upon by learned counsel for applicant are on different footings and are not applicable in the case in hand. Therefore, I do not find that this is a case of further enquiry and accordingly I dismiss the application of applicants. However, I direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously. The observations made above are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court will not be influenced by the same while deciding the case of applicant.

8. H.B.T./A-75/K Bail refused.