DATERDINO Versus The State
This is a criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court arising from allegations of an attack over land disputes, where the primary applicant was accused of ineffective firing and co-applicants were allegedly armed with hatchets but caused no injuries. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the main accused's fire was ineffective, co-accused inflicted no injuries, a co-accused had already been acquitted at trial, the complainant had compromised the matter, and abscondence was the remaining factor. The court held that the case warranted further inquiry under the circumstances and that abscondence alone does not preclude the grant of bail. The application was accordingly allowed, and bail was granted subject to furnishing solvent sureties.
- Does the allegation of ineffective firing combined with no injuries caused by co-accused bring a case within the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can the sole factor of abscondence disentitle an accused from bail when the merits of the case otherwise call for further inquiry?
- Is bail maintainable when the complainant has compromised the matter and stated no objection to acquittal?
ORDER
1. Allegations against the applicants are that they, including the acquitted accused Bilawal attacked the complainant party on account of disputed over lands and applicant Daterdino fired from his gun in order to kill them, but the fires did not hit anybody. The others, who were armed with hatchets also raised their hatchets, but they did not cause injury to anybody. Bilawal was arrested and challaned while the applicants were shown absconders. After recording evidence at the trial, Bilawal was acquitted by the'trial Court on 4‑I1‑2002. The applicants were arrested on 29‑10r2003.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State Counsel, the latter concedes to grant of bail.
3. Mr. Abdul, Rehman Bhutto contended that the role assigned to applicant Daterdino is of ineffective firing whereas the others who were allegedly armed with hatchets did not cause any injury to the complainant party, the case on the face of it, calls for further inquiry. In that event he submitted that the only allegation of abscondence would not come in the way of, grant of bail. He relied upon the cases Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul 1985 SCMR 382, Sharbat v. State 2003 MLD 1191 and Ali Nawaz v. State 1995 PCr.LJ 1316.
4. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State Counsel looking to the facts of the case and in view of the law cited by Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, conceded to the grant of bail.
5. The principles enunciated in 1985 SCMR 382 as also in 2003 MLD 1191 and 1995 PCr.LJ 1316 lend support to the case of applicants as not only the fires proved ineffective, but in a situation where the complainant party was lying on the ground and the applicants were armed with hatchets yet they did not inflict any injury to them with their hatchets, their role as regards murderous assault would require further inquiry. Moreover, when the complainant party fell on ground, even applicant Daterdino could conveniently aim at the target by making repeated fires, but none has received any fire‑arm injury. There is yet an interesting feature appearing in the case, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant whose deposition was recorded during the, trial gave a straightforward version saying that he has compromised the matter with the accused and he has no objection, if the accused and the present applicants are acquitted.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. The applicants be released on bail on furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
7. H.B.T./D‑16/K
8. Bail granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- FAROOQ SHAH vs THE STATE and 2 others 2008 P Cr. L J 1419
- BAGH ALI alias PERVAIZ vs THE STATE 2007 MLD 29