1. ' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that on the day of incident on 15-10-2005 at 2230 hours, the accused namely Syed Zaman Shah and, Muzzafar Shah, armed with Rifles and Imran Shah armed with a country-made pistol came to the Dargah of Syed Ali Gohar Shah where the complainant had been appointed by the Auqaf Department as a care-taker and he was residing there with his family and other followers. The accused told the complainant party to come out of their huts whereafter applicant/accused Zaman Shah put kerosene oil on the roofs of the huts and set them on fire. Then all the three accused fired in the air with their weapons in order to harass the complainant party whereafter they went away. Next morning viz. 16-10-2005 the complainant informed the Administrator of Augal, Hyderabad over the telephone regarding the incident and also wrote to him. Upon receiving the order from the Administrator on 22-10-2005 for lodging the F.I.R. He appeared at the police station and did so on the same day.
2. ' In support of the bail application Mr. Noor Ahmed has firstly submitted that there is enmity between the parties since the complainant has lodged a number of P.I.Rs. Against the applicants and his relatives in which one Chanessar is shown as a prosecution witness. In this regard he has referred to F.I.R. No.28 of 2004 of Police Station, Mithiani dated 30-4-2004, F.I.R. No.33 of 2004 of the same police station dated 29-5-2004, F.I.R. No.34 of 2004 dated 30-5-2004 and F.I.R.No.65 of 2005 dated 21-10-2005 both of the same police station. Consequently per learned counsel false implication and subsequent harassment for ulterior motives at the hands of the police cannot be ruled out. Secondly the F.I.R. In-question is belated since the incident took place on 15-10-2005 whereas the F.I.R. Was filed on 22-10-2005 for which no satisfactory explanation is available with the prosecution. Next learned Counsel has submitted that the applicant/accused had filed an application before the learned Session Judge, under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. To the effect that the complainant party had themselves set fire to their huts, in order to falsely implicate the accused.
3. Comments were called from the concerned S.H.O. Who never filed the same and instead entertained the present F.I.R. Agahlst the applicant. However, the said application was dismissed for non-prosecution as the applicant was hiding from the police. Again per learned counsel the applicant had lodged an F.I.R. Bearing No56 of 2005 of Police Station, Mithiani against police officials regarding the abduction of his son Aijaz Ali Shah and servant Hakim Ali Chandio which would establish that the police were ought to harass and humiliate him and his family members.
4. Next learned counsel has submitted that in the Mashirnama of the incident it is mentioned that Havelis of the accused as well as Ghulam Shah are adjacent to the scene, however, no independent P.Ws. Have been examined by the police which reflects the mala fides in the matter.
5. ' For all the foregoing reasons, learned counsel prayed that the interim bail earlier granted to the applicant may be confirmed.
6. ' On the other hand Mr. Baloch learned counsel for the complainant has vociferously opposed the bail plea of the applicant. In this regard he has firstly submitted that the applicant being a descendant of Syed Ali Gohar Shah has laid a claim to the Dargah, Mosque etc. Which property is worth in the millions and currently sub judice before the learned Civil Judge, Naushahro Feroze in Suit No.19 of 1992 filed by the Trustees of Syed Ali Gohar Shah Trust again Ghulam Shah and others.
7. In order to maintain the status quo between the parties the said Dargah has been given into the receivership of the Administrator Auqaf Department, Hyderabad vide order dated 24-12-1992 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Naushahro Feroze. Such order was appealed by the defendants before the learned District Judge, Naushahro Feroze in Civil Appeal No.2 of 1993 which was dismissed vide order dated 5-8-1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Naushahro Feroze.
8. Again the defendants challenged such orders by way of Civil Revision No.87 of 1993 which too was dismissed. Hence per learned counsel the order of the learned Civil Court has attained finality.
9. However, despite such legal position, the applicant/ accused and his other family members have from time to time forcibly occupied the Dargah and usurped the donations given by the devotees (Nazrana) and also tried to dispossess the employee's of the Auqaf Department therefrom (complainant) as a result of which various F.I.Rs. Have been filed against the accused.
10. Consequently per learned counsel it would be evident that the applicant/accused is a hardened criminal and by hook or crook bent upon usurping the donations of the Dargah and forcibly occupying the same in violation of Cowl orders. Learned counsel has also submitted that F.I.R.
11. No.56 of 2005 lodged by the applicant has been recommended to be disposed of by the police as a false case but to date no orders have been passed by the trial Court which would also prima facie establish that the applicant is in the habit of filing false cases. Learned counsel further says that the delay of about a week in filing of the F.I.R. Has been explained since complainant Misri first reported the matter to his superiors and when he received their instructions on 22-10-2005 the F.I.R.
12. Was immediately lodged on the same day. Next learned counsel has submitted that in the Mashirnama of incident dated 22-10-2005 four huts have been shown as burnt which belonged to the Dargah and were inhabited by the complainant and his family members which would prima facie establish the occurrence of the incident. Again it is incomprehensible that the complainant would himself set on fire the said huts which he and his family members were occupying.
13. ' Learned counsel has finally submitted that the sequence of events would show the criminal nature of the applicant/accused who is trying to obtain by force property etc. Which is the subject- matter of pending litigation. Hence no mala fides can be attributed to the complainant in the present case. He has, therefore, prayed that interim bail earlier granted be recalled and the bail application may be dismissed. He has relied upon Sarwar Sultan v. The State and another (PLD 1994 SC 133).
14. ' The learned Asstt.A.-G. Has fully supported the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant.
15. ' I have heard both the learned counsel as well as the learned Asstt. A.-G. And my conclusions are as follows:-- It would be seen that there is a history of litigation regarding the Dargah and Mosque of late Syed Ali Gohar Shah and the properties attached thereto in which the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant were the defendants and now their legal heirs have been brought on the record. As consequence of the same, the Dargah has been given in the receivership of the Auqaf Department, Hyderabad by the learned Civil Court in which the matter is pending who has appointed the complainant as caretaker. It appears that from time to time F.I.Rs. Have been registered against the applicant and his family for allegedly ururping the income of the Dargah and forcible trying to occupy the same in which the complainant is Misri Khan and the eyewitness is one Chanessar as also in the present F.I.R. Similatly the applicant has also filed an F.I.R. Alleging police harassment as well as an application under section 22-A and B, Cr. P . C . Before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze against the present complainant and other regarding the incident in which it is alleged that the fire in-question was started by accused Shahid Hussain, Shamsul Hussain, Misri and Chanessar. The applicant/accused upon seeing the, same raised cries on which these accused started cries on which these accused started indiscriminate firing and ran away etc. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that given background of enmity between the parties false implication cannot be ruled out particularly as no independent P .Ws . Have been examined by the police although admittedly the Dargah and huts in-question are situated in a village.
16. Consequently I would confirm the interim bail earlier granted to the applicant provided he submits another surety in the amount of Ruppes One lac and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court. Bail application stands disposed of.