1. ' ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.--- Heard Messrs Jai Jai Veshnu, Advocate for the applicants, Mushtaque Ahmed Abbasi, Assistant Advocate-General and Abdul Hakeem Khan Bijarani, Advocate for the complainant. The latter two have opposed the bail application.
2. ' The allegation against the applicants is that on 30-3-2005, at about 7-00 p.m. Near Haibat Shaheed Railway Crossing, they armed with kalashnikovs, along with their accomplices Nooruddin, also armed with kalashnikov, and two unidentified persons, armed with Lathies, during the course of committing Haraabah, caused fire-arm and Lathi injuries to complainant H.C. Rahim Bux while he and P.C. Ali Sher were returning on their motorcycle from their duty. The F.I.R. Was registered on 31-3-2005 at 1330 hours.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that there is delay in registering the F.I.R., and the fire-arm injury sustained by the complainant on his abdomen is specifically attributed to absconding accused Nooruddin, and that it was simply an attempt to commit dacoity, as nothing had been taken away by the culprits. In support of his contentions he has relied upon 2004 Pakistan Current Criminal Rulings 1154 and 2005 Pakistan Current Criminal Rulings 919.
4. ' So far as delay in registering the F.I.R. Is concerned, the same has been sufficiently explained, as the injured was rushed first to a local hospital and then to Chandka Medical College Hospital, Larkana obviously to save his life, which was more important.
5. ' As regards the contention of the learned counsel that the firearm injury sustained by the complainant at his abdomen is not attributed to the present applicants, it may be mentioned that in the matters of Haraabah as defined in section 15 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, every person concerned in the commission of the offence will be responsible for it. Moreover, under section 22 (ibid), punishment for attempt to commit Haraabah is 10 years. Thus, by all means, the offence comes within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. ' The precedents relied upon by the learned counsel have no relevance to the present case, inasmuch as in the first case the name of the accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R. And the statement of a witness making him responsible for the commission of the offence was confusing and not clear. In the other case also the accused were implicated by the complainant not immediately on reaching the police station but at a later stage and there was strong evidence in the shape of medical certificates issued by the Department of Medicine Dow Medical College and Civil Hospital Karachi in support of their plea of alibi.
7. ' There is also no force in the contention of the learned counsel that the applicants had been falsely implicated because their brother had moved application against some other officials of police to the Provincial Ombudsman. Firstly, the alleged complaint, which was about two and half years old, was made by applicant's brother (who has not been implicated) and secondly, it was not against the complainant or any of the witness of the present case or any of their relatives. In such circumstances, it cannot be assumed that the seriously wounded victim would falsely implicate the applicants in place of the real culprits simply because their brother had complained to the Ombudsman against some police officials few years back.
8. ' In view of the above, coupled with the worst law and order situation prevailing in the interior of the Province, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants are not entitled to bail. Therefore, the application is dismissed.