SHABBIR AHMED RONJHO alias SHABBO Versus State
ORDER
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- Through this bail application, applicant Shabbir Ahmed Ronjho alias Shabbo son of Muhammad Hanif Ronjho has assailed the legality and propriety of order dated 18.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujawal, on bail application in Sessions Case No.98 of 2017 filed under Crime No.68 of 2016 registered with Police Station Jatti for the offence punishable under sections 302/324/114/34, P.P.C., whereby the learned Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the bail plea of the applicant.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per FIR are that on 06.07.2016 at 1230 hours, complainant Aloo Shah son of Bachal Shah appeared at Police Station Jatti and lodged FIR alleging therein that Abdul Aziz son of Muhammad Hanif Roonjha and others are his neighbors. On 05.07.2016, Abdul Aziz Roonjha climbed over the electric pole fixed near the house of complainant. Brother of complainant namely Ghulam Hussain restrained him from climbing over the police. On that Abdul Aziz annoyed and used abusive language with the brother of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant and his brother Ghulam Hussain were standing in front of the house of their cousin Saleh Mohammad Shah along with PWs Sher Ali Shah and Umed Ali Shah. In the meanwhile accused (1) Abdul Aziz son of Mohammad Hanif Roonjha armed with double barrel gun, (2) Waqar Ahmed son of Qamaruddin Roonjha armed with pistol, (3) Shabbir Ahmed alias Shaboo son of Muhammad Hanif having lathi and (4) Qamaruddin son of Mohammad Soomar Roonjha empty handed came there at 1230 hours and started abusing to the complainant party. Accused Qamaruddin instigated other accused to kill the complainant party, on his instigation, accused Abdul Aziz Roonjha caused straight fire with his double barrel gun upon Ghulam Hussain with intention to commit his murder and he fell down on the ground and blood started oozing. Accused Waqar Ahmed caused pistol fire upon complainant party with intention to kill them, but it was missed. Accused Shabbir Ahmed alias Shaboo caused lathi blows to injured/brother of complainant namely Ghulam Hussain lying on the ground. On cries of the complainant party, the neighbors rushed there. Thereafter, all the accused went away while abusing. The complainant party brought the injured to Taluka Hospital Jati and after first aid the injured referred to Civil Hospital, Makli for further treatment, but in the way, he expired. After completing the necessary formalities, the dead body was handed over to complainant party. Hence, this FIR.
3. Mr. Nasrullah Malik, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant with mala fide intention. Per learned counsel, there is inordinate delay of about twenty four hours in lodging of FIR, while police station is situated at the distance of one kilometer away from the house of complainant, hence, false implication of the accused in the instant case cannot be ruled out. Per learned counsel, the only allegation against the applicant is that he caused lathi blows to the deceased which makes no sense at all that the persons who had already been made injured, any one would cause blows to him, as such section 302/324, P.P.C. are not attributed to the applicant. Per learned counsel, the case of applicant falls under further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Per learned counsel the applicant has been implicated in this case on the insitigation of co-accused namely Qamaruddin, who along with another co-accused namely Waqar has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2016, as such, the case of present applicant is on same footing, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for same relief in shape of bail.
4. Ms. Seema Zaidi, learned DPG by not controverting the fact that co-accused namely Qamaruddin along with Waqar has already been granted bail, argued that the name of applicant is mentioned in FIR with specific role, the PWs have supported the case of prosecution in their statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. recorded by the investigating officer. She further argued that the bail before arrest application of the applicant has already been dismissed on merits by the trial Court vide order dated 20.07.2017, therefore, he is not entitled for the concession of bail and prayed for the dismissal of bail application.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. From perusal of mashirnama of wardat, it appears that neither blood stained mud was recovered from the spot nor blood marks were available on the place of incident. As per contents of FIR, the only allegations against the applicant that he armed with lathi blows caused to the deceased. As per charge sheet, the case properties, which were recovered from the place of incident are (1) Blood stained dress of deceased Ghulam Hussain Shah Qameez and Shalwar of Block Brown Colour Shalwar with white belt blood stained and one under garment blood stained sealed, (2) Two empties of pistol and one empty of cartridge of Shaheen Company bearing 4 number sealed in white cloth, (3) One DBBL gun bearing 193 with original arm license No.7562485079 only with iron small plate without wood safety plat, three cartridges sealed and (4) Sparks of fires recovered from the abdomen of deceased Ghulam Hussain Shah by the Medical Officer, sealed with signature of M/O Jati sealed with letter dated 05.07.2016, were sent to FSL, but lathi armed by the present applicant was not shown as case property/recovery from the place of incident, hence, the case of present applicant calls for further inquiry and falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Co-accused namely Qamaruddin, who along with another co-accused namely Waqar has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2016, hence, undoubtedly, the case of applicant is at par with the case of the said co-accused, therefore, he is also entitled to equal treatment as meted out to the aforesaid co-accused in the eyes of law following the rule of consistency. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the cases reported as Saeed Ahmed v. The State reported as 1995 SCMR 170, Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State reported as PLD 1995 SC 34, Muhammad Azam v. The State reported as 2008 SCMR 249 and Muhammad Daud v. The State reported as 2008 SCMR 173.
8. By following the dictum as laid down in the above rulings by Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are applicable in all fours to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I reached at conclusion that the applicant is entitled to concession of bail, Applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Lac only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Applicant is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing without fail.
9. Before parting, it needs not to make clarification that the observations recorded above are tentative in nature, therefore, the trial court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever.
WA/S-72/Sindh Bail granted.