ASHFAQUE AHMED Versus State
ORDER
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- Through instant bail application, applicant Ashfaque Ahmed son of Allah Dino Maitlo, who has been booked in Crime No.43/2020 Police Station, Tamachani for offences punishable under sections 324, 452, 506/2, 34, P.P.C., seeks pre-arrest bail. Earlier his bail application has been declined by Sessions Judge, Sukkur vide order dated 12.11.2020.
2. Facts of prosecution case in brief are that on 20.10.2020 at 1400 hours Complainant Iqbal Ahmed lodged FIR at Police Station Tamachani stating that on 18.10.2020, he along with his son Khadim Huss; n and other family members after taking meal, were present in house, it was 09:30 p.m. five persons entered into the house. Out of them one accused namely Ishfaque Ahmed armed with pistol and four unidentified persons being armed with Kalashnikovs while coming present applicant/accused used abusive language and stated that he restrained him not to lodge case against them but he did not mend his way hence they will spare them and commit his murder. They pointed their weapons upon complainant party while applicant fired upon Khadim Hussain (son of complainant) with intention to commit his murder which hit him and he fell down. Thereafter all the accused went away by issuing serious threats. Complainant party saw his son who sustained fire arm injury upon leg which was through and through and blood was oozing. Complainant then brought injured at Government Hospital Bagerji for treatment. Hence, he lodged FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant has falsely been implicated by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that there is delay of about two days in lodging of the FIR which has not been properly explained by the complainant; that no offence whatsoever has been committed by the applicant/accused but complainant and his son managed self-suffered injury and lodged this false FIR against applicant/accused; that as per certificate the injured has received one injury while certificate there appears two exit wounds which is inconsistent with the ocular testimony. He lastly contended that deep scrutiny of evidence is not permissible, nor it was the requirement of law at bail stage however, question could be decided in vacuum as to whether accused is prima facie connected with the commission of offence or not. By contending so, he prayed for grant of bail. He relied upon the case reported in Babar v. The State (2020 SCMR 761), Mohammad Tanveer v. The State and another (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733), Naeemullah and 3 others v. The State (2020 P.CrLJ 131), MohamMad Din v. The State (2020 PCr.LJ Note 103).
4. As against, Mr. Shafi Mohammad Mahar, learned Deputy Prosecutor General vehemently opposed the grant of bail and supported the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur; that applicant along with other accused have attributed specific role of firing upon son of complainant injured Khadim Hussian which he has received which the medical officer has opined Jurh Ghyr Jaifah Mutalahimah which provided punishment upto Ten years hence there is no nialafide on the part of complainant. He prayed for dismissing the bail application.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have gone through the record. Perusal of record reflects that name of present applicant appears in the FIR with specific role of causing fire arm injury at injured Khadim Hussain and he also shared a common intention with the other co-accused and has participated in the commission of offence. The enmity between the parties may be there but it may not be reason for false involvement of the applicant/accused in this case. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, prima facie, the FIR itself shows that delay is well explained by the complainant in the FIR. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in the dictum laid down in the case reported in 1996 SCMR 1765 "that delay in lodging the FIR alone is never considered a circumstance sufficient for grant of bail in a case of capital punishment". No doubt in the cases cited by the :earned Advocate, bail was granted but in each one of them, the facts and circumstances were quite different and thus they were distinguishable. From the perusal of medical certificate the injured has received injury which has been opined by the medical Officer as Jurh Ghyr Jaifah Munaqillah and punishment provided upto seven years. The offence for which the applicant/accused has been charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
In view of above, I am of the considered view that the applicant/accused has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused Ashfaque Ahmed Maitlo vide order dated 04.12.2020 is hereby recalled and surety is discharged. Applicant Ashfaque Ahmed son Allah Dino Maitlo is present on bail, he is taken into custody and remanded to Central jail-I Sukkur with directions to Jail Superintendent to produce him before concerned Court where his case is pending on the date when it is fixed. Let copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court for information.
6. Needless to say, the observations made here-in-above are tentative in nature and only for the purpose of this bail application. Ncithing herein shall affect the determination of the facts at the trial or infi uence the Trial Court in reaching its decision on merits of the case.
Bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.
SA/A-7/Sindh Bail declined.