GHULAM ALI Versus State

ORDER

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.--- Through the captioned post arrest bail application, applicant Ghulam Ali has impugned the order dated 10.12.2014, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, whereby his earlier bail application was declined.

2. The relevant facts spelt out from the prosecution case are that allegedly applicant while plying Suzuki hit the motorcycle of complainant's son namely Muhammad Ramzan who during his treatment at hospital, succumbed to his injuries, hence instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that all the sections mentioned in the FIR are bailable except section 322, P.P.C., which is punishable for Diyat. It is further contended that during the period of six months, prosecution has failed to examine a single witness in support of its case. He further contended that investigation has been completed and he applicant is no more required further. He relied upon the case reported in 2000 PCr.LJ 253.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that though section 322, P.P.C. is punishable for Diyat but section 320, P.P.C. is punishable up to ten years. He relied upon case of Atta Muhammad v. State 2005 PCr.LJ 1648.

5. Learned DPG extended no objection if applicant is ready to furnish solvent surety equivalent to the Diyat amount.

6. Perusal of the material available on record and consideration of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties supported with case law enunciate that applicant allegedly while plying his Suzuki hit the motorcycle of complainant's son, who sustained severe injuries and ultimately expired. Indeed, the offences punishable under sections 320, 279 and 429, P.P.C. are bailable while offence punishable under section 322, P.P.C. is punishable for Diyat and no quantum of sentence has been provided for said offence in the schedule. It is for the learned trial Court to thrash hold at the trial that whether the iota of evidence adduced by the prosecution would bring the case of accused within the ambit of section 322, P.P.C. or otherwise. Moreover, applicant is behind the bars for a period of more than six months but prosecution has failed to examine a single witness to substantiate its case against the accused. It is well settled that while considering the question bail application, Court has to consider the aspect of minimum sentence provided for the alleged offence in the subject schedule. Admittedly, investigation has been concluded and accused is no more required to the police and further detention of the applicant will not serve any useful purpose.

7. Considering the above circumstances, applicant has succeeded to make out a case for his enlargement on bail on the ground of further enquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently, applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing solvent surety equivalent to Diyat amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

SL/G-19/Sindh Bail allowed.