SHAHMIR Versus STATE

ORDER

1. The complainant Ali Gohar has lodged the F.I.R. under Crime No.57 of 1993 of Police Station, New Foujdari, Shikarpur on 19-7-1993, alleging therein that accused Muhammad Ayub had declared his wife Mst. Miami as Kari with the brother of complainant. Complainant had asked the accused for Faisala but he refused. On 19-7-1993, complainant Ali Gohar, his brother Ali Gul and Akber were standing near the house of Ghulam Akber Mahar and selling fruits, when at about 11-15 a.m., accused Ayub armed with pistol, accused Hakim and present applicant Shahmir armed with hatchets and accused Muhammad Sachal was empty-handed (already granted bail before arrest by this Court) in Criminal Bail Application No.484 of 1993) came over there. On investigation of Sachal to his companions to kill the deceased Ali Gul, the said Ali Gul tried to run, thereafter accused followed Ali Gul and he knocked down and the accused party threatened the complainant party not to come near them. Accused Muhammad Ayub fired on the right side of the chest of Ali Gul from his pistol and accused Hakim and Shahmir (applicant) caused hatchet injuries, thereafter-accused part/ ran away. The bail application on behalf of the applicant Shahmir was moved in the learned trial Court, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur vide his order, dated 18-11-1993. Therefore, he has approached this Court with the same prayer.

2. I have heard Mr. Kazi Abdul Kadir, Advocate appearing for the applicant, who has contended that accused/applicant alongwith co-accused Hakim re alleged to have caused hatchet injuries on the person of the decease Ali Gul. He has further contended that two persons are alleged to have caused two incised wounds, which are muscle deep and are simple in nature. One incised wound is on the left side of the forehead margin 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. and second is one incised wound on right eyebrow margin in 04 c.m. x 02 c.m. muscle deep and according to the learned counsel for the applicant in the opinion of the doctor, the death of the deceased has occurred due to shock and haemorrhage by injuries caused by fire-arm weapon. He has also produced the certified copy of the post-mortem report and further that it is also mistery as to which incised injury is caused by accused/applicant Shahmir. No doubt, both these injuries are trivial and simple in nature. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited the case of Wilayat and another v. The State reported in 1984 S C M R 530, in which it has been held that co-accused already granted bail on ground of having given hatchet blow causing simple injury to deceased. Accused/applicant stated to have given hatchet blow on arm of deceased which turned out to be simple. Bail granted. Hidayat and 2 others v. The State P L D 1985 Lah. 201, in which accused attributed simple injury on the leg of the deceased bail was allowed, and Ghulam Muhammad v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 1831 in which it has been held that injuries attributed to petitioner found simple in nature. Enmity between the parties admitted incidents over without intervention from anyone. Case of further enquiry as contemplated by section 497(2) held made out. Bail granted.

3. I have heard Mr. Gul Bahar Korai, learned counsel appearing for AA.-G. for the State, who has opposed the prayer of the bail.

4. I have gone through the police papers and authorities cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. Co-accused Sachal is already on pre-arrest bail granted by this Court, though he has been assigned role of instigation only but the question of exaggeration can be gathered. The accused/applicaral Shahmir alongwith co-accused Hakim is alleged to have caused hatchet injuries but it is not crystal clear as to which injury is attributed to him and both the, A injuries caused by hatchet are simple in nature and only are muscle deep. The medico-legal report shows that cause of death of Ali Gut is the fire-arm injuries which he has received allegedly at the hand of co-accused Ayub.

5. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the case ofl the accused/applicant Shahmir prima facie is that of further inquiry. As such I I B allow this application and order that the applicant may be released on bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rs. two hundred thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

6. N.H.Q./S-1078/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.