Mian USMAN Versus State

ORDER

FAHEEM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J .---The applicant was admitted to ad-interim pre-arrest bail through an earlier order in a case registered against him through FIR 44/2020 of Police Station Kot Laloo, under sections 324, 504, 114, 147,

149. Subsequent to interim relief, the matter was heard and decided through a short order dated 02-11-2020, whereby the interim order was confirmed on the same terms and condition.

2. The detailed reasons of the short order are given bellow, which describe the observations and ground for extending the benefit of bail to the applicant in the criminal case initiated upon the aforementioned FIR. These observations are jotted down on the basis of arguments advanced from either side and perusal or record and citations.

(a) The allegations against the applicant are that he had fired upon one Moula Bux, who is the son of complainant Ahmed Khan and causing injury to his right leg. There are allegations against the other accused persons for instigation and injuries caused to the prosecution witnesses by co-accused persons.

(b) The motive of the incident is the dispute in between the complainant and his brother Muhammad Shareef, who is the father of the applicant, over a piece of ancestral land/ plot. Allegedly, the plot on which the applicant's father has built his house falling in the portion of the plot which was claiming by the complainant as his part or portion of the land/plot.

(c) It is worth noting that the plot in question has yet not been partitioned and allegedly, it was privately divided between the parties but for the same no proof is placed on the record by the prosecution. d) The alleged incident was taken place at the time of measurement carried out but the said alleged measurement was being carried out privately without associating any official or even any notable from the locality.

(e) It is alleged that the applicant has fired upon the son of the complainant but as per contention of the FIR there was no repetition from the applicant, as such the intention of causing murder of the son of the complainant is apparently missing.

(f) There are six persons nominated in the FIR amongst them pre-arrest bail for four accused persons was confirmed by the subordinate court while pre- arrest bail to the present applicant was declined only on the ground that he has caused fire-arm injury.

(g) The alleged injury to the injured was caused on the non-vital part of the body, as such immense danger of causing death of the injured is missing which also makes the case for further probe as to the intention of murder of the injured.

(h) The animosity is admitted within the body of FIR as such self-suffered injury cannot be ruled out specially when all the prosecution witnesses are the real sons of the complainant.

3. These are the reasons for my above-referred short, order for confirmation of pre-arrest bail to the applicant. However, before parting, I would like to make it clear that if the applicant, after getting bail, remains absent from trial Court and if the trial Court is satisfied about his absconding, then the trial Court will be competent to take every action against the applicant and his surety including cancellation of bail without referring to this Court.

4. It is clarified that all of the above observations are purely tentative and will have no bearing upon the case of either party during trial.

SA/U-7/Sindh Bail granted.