1. ' SYED SHAFQAT ALI SHAH MASOOMI, J.---Applicant seeks bail in Crime No,19 of 2008 registered at Police Station Dokri for offence punishable under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. Bail application of the applicant was dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order, dated 13-1-2009. Hence this application.
2. 'Facts leading to this case are that on 29-1-2008, complainant Muhammad Bux Khaskheli lodged the F.I.R. Stating therein that, his brother Ahmed used to cultivate an agricultural land of his relative Altaf Hussain Khaskheli situated at Deh Gujhar. On the morning, he along with his nephew Muhammad Yaseen who is serving in Army and had come to village on leave went together at the land of Altaf Hussain Khaskeli to water the `JA0' crop, where his brother Mehmood, nephew Muhammad Hashim and relative Seengar had already reached for turn of water. The complainant party opened the water course to flow water to their land, when at about 10-00 a.m. Every one Abdul Majeed armed with K.K., Deedar armed with rifle, Abdul Hameed armed with gun, Rustam armed with pistol, Riaz armed with gun, Panjal armed with gun, Ramzan, Niaz and Aslam all three armed with guns, Manthar armed with rifle came there and abused the complainant party that why they without their permission have flown the water to their land, hence they would not be spared. On saying so accused Abdul Majeed, Deedar, Abdul Hameed, Rustam and Riaz fired straightly upon his nephew Muhammad Yaseen in order to commit his murder, which hit him and he fell down by raising cries. Accused Panjal and Ramzan fired from their weapons upon his brother Mehmood in order to commit his murder which hit him and he fell down by raising cries. Accused Niaz and Manthar also fired upon his nephew Muhammad Hashim, which hit him and he fell down by raising cries and accused Aslam fired upon the complainant in order to commit his murder which hit him on (sic) complainant party raised cries and on their cries and fire-arm reports, their relatives and other co-villagers came there and thereafter all the accused persons ran away.
3. Thereafter, complainant his relative Seengar and other relatives noticed fire-arm injury on the person of his nephew Muhammad Yaseen and found him dead. They also saw his brother Mehmood having fire-arm injuries on his head and blood was oozing and nephew Muhammad Hashim having firearm injuries on the thigh of left leg. Thereafter, complainant brought the dead- body of deceased Muhammad Yaseen and above named injured at Taluka Hospital Dokri and then placed the dead-body of deceased Mohammad Yaseen under the supervision of P.W. Seengar and while admitting the above named injured at Hospital for treatment, the complainant went to Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. To the above effect.
4. ' Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the allegation against the applicant is that he fired with shot gun upon the complainant Muhammad Bux at his right leg which is non vital part of body and according to final medical certificate the nature of injury is Jurh Ghyr Jaifah Dammyah which is punishable with only one year.
5. ' Miss. Rubina Dhamrah, learned State Counsel conceded the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant on the ground that role assigned to the present applicant does not come within the prohibitory clause.
6. ' The applicant was arrested on 4-2-2008 and since then he is in jail. The deceased sustained injury at the hands of Deedar Ahmed, Abdul Majeed, Imdad, Rustam and Riaz. The allegation against the present applicant/accused is that he caused injury on the non-vital part of the body. Further more co-accused Niaz has already been granted bail who caused injury to Muhammad Hashim. The role of present A applicant is identical to that of co-accused Niaz. Also on the rule of consistency, bail is granted to the applicant subject to solvent surety in the sum of Rs,300,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. ' The observations made above tentative in nature and the trial Court not be influenced at trial while deciding the case of the applicant.