Malik SHAMOON AHMED Versus State

ORDER

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.--- Through captioned post-arrest bail application, applicant Malik Shamoon Ahmed has impugned judgment dated 15.02.2016, passed by the Court of learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South, in Sessions Case No.1590/2015, whereby his earlier bail application was declined.

2. Relevant facts spelt out from instant FIR are that complainant and three nominated inter sex accused were residing in a rented premises and accused were tempting complainant to join them but he refused. On 07.05.2015 at 7.00 p.m. they called complainant at Madrasi Para, JPMC and caused him kicks and fists blows, resultantly his three teeth were broken, hence instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for applicant contended that co-accused Mohsin Ali and Hassam Ali have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court; that the case of applicant is on similar footings, hence he is also entitled to concession of bail under the rule of consistency.

4. Learned A.P.G. opposed the plea of bail and contended that name of applicant is mentioned in FIR and a specific role has been assigned to him, therefore he is not entitled for bail.

5. Heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, which emanates that complainant and all three nominated accused were residing in a rented premises and accused were tempting the complainant to join them to which he refused. On the fateful day, all the three accused called complainant at Madrasi Para, JPMC and caused kicks and fists blows to the complainant, resultantly his three teeth were broken. Moreso, alleged incident was occurred at Madrasi Para, JPMC but no witness from the locality has supported the prosecution story and two witnesses of complainant's family who are residing in Jat Lines, have been included in the list of witnesses. It is significant to mention that co-accused Hassan Ali and Mohsin Bhatti have already been enlarged on bail by learned trial Court, while the similar set of general allegations has been leveled against the applicant and it is for trial Court to record evidence of PWs and fix the responsibility of guilt against the accused at trial. Applicant is behind the bars for more than six months but prospection has failed to examine even a single witness to substantiate the charge. Admittedly, investigation has been completed and applicant is no more required by the police, hence no useful purpose will be served out, if plea of bail is declined at this stage.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, applicant has succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. as well as under the rule of consistency. Consequently, applicant is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

The observations made above are tentative in nature and learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly on merits expeditiously and preferably within three months. Compliance report be submitted to this Court through MIT-II of this Court.

WA/S-101/Sindh Bail granted.