Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
2001 Y L R 1731
2001 Y L R 1731
[Karachi]
Before Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J
ABDULLAH---Applicant
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.293 of 2001, decided on 15th May, 2001.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/114/34---Bail, grant of---Accused though had gun, but he did not fire any shot from the said gun---Only allegation against the accused was that of pointing the gun towards the deceased and the prosecution witnesses ---F.I.R. had stated that the co accused who were having knives in their hands had killed the deceased with the knives---Report of Medical Officer also confirmed the fact that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by the knife-- Accused did not take any part in causing the death of the deceased and the only allegation against him was that of instigation and pointing the gun towards the deceased---Case calling for further inquiry, the accused was granted bail.
Mumtaz Hussain and others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1125; Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State 1996 SCMR 1654; Farzand Ali v. Taj and 2 others v. The State 2000 SCMR 1854 and Amanat Ali v. The State 1993 SCMR 1992 ref.
Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro for Applicant.
Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo for the State
Date of hearing: 15th May, 2001.
ORDER
Applicant in this case has applied for grant of bail as he is involved in Crime No.45 of 2000, Police Station Dharmah registered under sections 302, 114 and 34, P.P.C. and facing trial in Sessions Case No.292 of 2000.
Briefly the facts as enunciated in the F.I.R. are that on 23-6-2000 complainant alongwith his son Shamsuddin, cousin Imdad Hussain and maternal cousin Bashir Ahmed were grazing the cattle. It is said that it was 11-00 a.m. when accused Nasir Ahmed armed with knife, Ghulam Murtaza with knife, Habibullah armed with knife and Abdullah armed with gun appeared. Out of them accused Abdullah instigated rest of accused and said that complainant party have purchased their confirmed lands hence Shamsuddin would not be spared. It is alleged that Abdullah straightened his gun at complainant party while rest of the accused inflicted knife blows to Shamsuddin (son of the complainant). Complainant being empty handed could not dare to go near. Thereafter, they went over to Shamsuddin and found injuries on his person, which were bleeding and eventually he succumbed to the injuries. The complainant leaving above named witnesses over the corpse went to report that they had purchased a land from one Sikandar Kalhoro which annoyed accused persons. Hence this application.
I have heard Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Advocate for applicant and Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo counsel for the State.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that only allegation against the present applicant is that of instigation and pointation of gun. He further submits, that no overt act has been attributed to the applicant, and that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. He submits that the case of applicant is that of further inquiry. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case-law:--
(1) Mumtaz Hussain and others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1125,
(2) Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State 1996 SCMR 1654 and
(3) Farzand Ali v. Taj and 2 others v. The State 2000 SCMR 1854.
Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo learned counsel for State has conceded to the grant of bail and has raised no objection.
From perusal of the F.I.R. it is clear that tote tapoli6ant was having the gun but he did not shot any fire from the said gun. Only allegation against the present applicant is that of pointing the gun towards the deceased and the P.Ws. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the co-accused who were having knives in their hands killed the deceased with the knives. The report of Medical Officer appearing in the police papers also confirms the fact that the injuries sustained by, the deceased were caused by sharp-cutting substance i.e. knife. Admittedly the present applicant did not take any part in causing death of the deceased and the only allegation against him is that of instigation and pointation of the gun. Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Amanat Ali v. The State 1993 SCMR 1992 was. pleased to convert petition for leave to appeal of the petitioner in to appeal and enlarged him on bail who was attributed only a Lalkara. In yet another case titled Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1654, Honourable apex Court was pleased to grant bail to an accused person who was alleged to have kept on firing and raising Lalkara at the time of the occurrence Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Farzand Ali reported in 2000 SCMR 1854 whereby the accused persons who were alleged to be in possession of Sotis which they did not use were granted bail. Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mumtaz Hussain reported in 1996 SCMR 1125 was pleased to grant bail to accused persons who were allegedly armed with deadly weapons but caused only simple blunt injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses and it was further observed in the said report that whether the accused shared common intention who caused death of deceased needed further enquiry.
The above authorities are squarely applicable in the circumstances of the present case. The case of applicant calls for further enquiry. In this view of the matter, the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./A-230/K Bail granted.