SONO Versus STATE

ORDER

1. This application for bail has been moved on behalf of applicant Sono who has been arrested in connection with a case registered as Crime No.41/93 on the complaint of Muhammad Umar on 2-6-1993 at Police Station Kunri under sections 459 and 34, P.P.C.

2. Application for bail for applicant had been moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mirpurkhas which was rejected by him by his order, dated 23-6-1993.

3. The case of the prosecution is that injured Geno Kolhi lives on the land of his Zamindar, who is complainant Muhammad Umar, in a hut. There are other huts also near his hut. It is the case of the prosecution that on the night of 31-5-1993, at about 2-00 a.m. Kewal and Tejo went to the complainant and told him that they were attracted on hearing of the cries from the house of Geno and went to his house and found him lying injured. Geno told them that on hearing some sound he got up and saw some persons standing at the side of his trunk. Out of them two culprits were standing by the side of the trunk while third one was standing behind him and that man gave him hatchet blow. He sustained injury on his shoulder. He further told them that he identified only Sono Kolhi who caused him injury while he could not identify remaining two complainants. He then went to the house of Geno and found him injured having injury on his shoulder. On his enquiry, Geno confirmed the information given to him by Kewal and Tejo. On second day complainant took Geno to medical Officer at Kunri and lodged report with police. After usual investigation, applicant was sent up for trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is delay of about 2 days in lodging the report and this shows that a false case has been made out against the applicant. This contention is not tenable because apparently there is no motive for the injured to falsely implicate the applicant in this case. Learned counsel tried to show some enmity of the injured with the applicant but he could not substantiate any such enmity. In support of his contention he has referred to 1975 P Cr. L J 1265. This authority is also of no help to him because the case of the applicant is quite distinguishable. Injured apparently has got no reason to implicate the applicant falsely in this case. The delay which has occurred in lodging of the report with p the police is no fault on his part because he had sustained a grievous injury on his shoulder and in my view he, therefore, could not go to the police himself. If other persons delayed the matter it is the responsibility or fault of those persons.

5. Next submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was no possibility of identification of the applicant by the injured because it was moonlight, otherwise there was no source of light. This contention is also repelled because even in moonlight, if the accused person is known to the victim, he can certainly identify him. In this case the incident occurred in the room very close to the injured and, as such, he could identify the man who caused him injury.

6. Mr. Abdul Latif Memon, AA.-G., for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant for bail.

7. For what I have said above, I do not consider it a fit case for bail and consequently, I dismiss the application.

8. N.H.Q./S-1019/K Bail refused.