NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. The applicant Noor Muhammad is facing trial, alongwith 4 others, in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) on the charge of an offence punishable under section 436/34, P.P.C. The crime was registered on a report made at Police Station Landhi Colony by Ismail son of Long on 25-11-1984, alleging that the applicant and his associates had set his, shop on fire. The applicant and the co-accused were admitted to bail before arrest by the Sessions Court on 12-12-1984. The confirmation of bail was considered on 1-10-1985, when interim bail before arrest granted to the co-accused was confirmed while interim bail before arrest granted to the applicant was cancelled and he was remanded to jail on the ground that he had allegedly played leading role in setting fire to the complainant's shop.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant has alleged false implication` of the applicant on account of enmity. He has attempted to point out improbabilities of the case. He has urged that the applicant had remained on interim bail before arrest for nearly a year and there was no distinguishing feature in the case for rejecting the applicant's bail application and confirming the bail of the co-accused. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application contending that the applicant is alleged to have set fire to the complainant's shop and he did not deserve to remain on bail. He has mentioned that the applicant party have grudge against the complainant party as the applicant's father Ilyas is being tried for murder of complainant Ismail's brother Usman and the applicant party were putting pressure on them that they should withdraw from the case against the applicant's father. He has also made mention of some events of threats alleged to have been issued by the applicant party to the complainant party.

3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General holds the view that there were no circumstances for making distinction by the learned trial Judge in rejecting the bail application in respect of the present applicant and confirming the bail of the co-accused and he does not oppose the application.

4. Prosecution case is that complainant Ismail's shop was found on fire when he was away. The report made by him is based on the information that, he had derived some other persons. It is stated that the complainant party have had grievance against the applicant party as the applicant's father is involved in the murder of a brother of the complainant. The learned AA.-G. has pointed out that the Mashirnama of the Wardat indicates that no damage was caused by fire to the structure of the shop but only the goods lying inside the shop were found burnt. It is also stated that some hutments around the shop also were burnt in the same incident. The contention of the defence side is that it was an incident of accidental fire. Considering all the circumstances mentioned above cumulatively, the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

5. N.H.Q./N-488/K Bail granted.