KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J. ‑‑‑ The facts leading to present application for bail are that applicant Ghulam Murtaza is facing trial in Special Case No.2 of 2000 before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (S.T.A.), Sukkur, under sections 324, 337‑H(ii), 148, 149 and 114, P.P.C. read with section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance. It arose out of F.I.R. No.64 of 2000 Police Station Dubber.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed by complainant Ghulam Mustafa in his F.I.R. lodged on 24‑7‑2000 at Police Station Dubber are that accused Muhammad Ali Panhwar is his distant cousin. He has dispute with them for the last about one year over the piece of land. On the fateful night, complainant and his relatives namely Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Achar and others were sitting in his Otaq. At about 9‑30 p.m. accused Muhammad Ali, Zulfiqar Ali empty‑handed, accused Amanullah armed with gun. Abdul Hameed, Ibrahim armed with Lathis, Ghulam Murtaza with kalashnikov rifle; Pir Bux with rifle, Zulfiqar with gun, Abdul Aziz and Nizamuddin armed with hatchet came there. Accused Muhammad Ali and Zulfiqar abused the complainant and instigated others to kill him. Accused Amanullah fired at complainant but the complainant got it missed by placing himself on the ground. The commotion and cries attracted co villagers and the culprits fleeted from the Wardat.

3. The complainant went to police station and lodged the F.I.R. The police arrested the applicant and recovered weapon from the applicant. After completing the investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court.

4. The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but his bail plea was dismissed by impugned order, dated 20‑12‑2000.

5. We have heard Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Junejo, learned counsel for the applicant/accused and Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar, learned A.A.‑G. on behalf of the State. The latter concedes to the bail plea of the applicant/accused.

6. The perusal of material placed on record shows that) applicant/accused alongwith his companions made direct firing upon the complainant and prosecution witnesses with fire‑arm but not a single scratch has been received by any of the witnesses. The enmity is existing between the parties. The applicant/accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation. He is in custody since 26‑7‑2000.

7. Looking towards the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that applicant/accused is entitled to bail. Consequently, he is granted bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

8. H. B. T. /G‑40/K Bail granted.