Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NAMDAR VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Mushir Alam Title: NAMDAR vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Bail Application No,422 of 2004 Date of Judgment:2004-07-12 Reported As: 2004 P C R L J 1836 Result: Bail granted
Judgment ORDER ' Bail is sought by the applicant Namdar son of Pahraz Bangulani, facing trial in Crime No,125 of 2004, offence under sections 302, 147, 148, 403, 50, P.P.C. ' Allegation against the present applicant is of causing Lathi blow on the deceased Ghulam Muhammad. In the F.I.R. Specific allegation causing hatchet blow were made against Yousif, Munshi and Sabzal. Whereas other five accused including present applicant is alleged to have caused Lathi blow on the person of deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the medical report shows that the deceased received three injuries on his head. According to him all the injuries are attributed to the persons who are accused of causing hatchet blow, as alleged. Learned State Counsel urged that conflict in ocular and medical evidence cannot be determined at this bail stage and it can only be collected at trial. ' Learned State Counsel opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the name of applicant transpires in F.I.R. And overt act has been attributed to him. ' Having heard the arguments and perused the record from the contents of the F.I.R. It is apparent that specific allegation of causing hatchet blow are made against Yousif, Munshi and Sabzal to have caused and inflicted blow on the head of deceased. Medical evidence apparently shows three injuries, on the head. Though the injury that has been shown as fatal appears to have been caused by the bard and blunt substance and there is possibility that such may be the other side of the hatchet. Applicant appears to have been apprehended on 2-11-2003, and is behind bars since then other accused persons are still at large. The case as argued by the applicant's counsel makes out a case where in my opinion applicant becomes entitle to claim bail. Accordingly, the applicant is extended benefit of bail. However, subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of
---
## Page 2
Rs,1,00,000 (one hundred thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. ' In case the applicant misuses the concession of bail, the learned trial Court may cancel the bail.