1. ' IMAM BUX BLOCH, J.---By this common order I would like to dispose of above-mentioned criminal miscellaneous applications jointly, as the matter relates to one crime. Through Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,S-241 of 2009, the applicant, who is complainant in the F.I.R. Bearing Crime No, 34 of 2009 of Police Station Shandadkot, has requested for cancellation of post arrest bail granted to respondents Nos.1 and 2/accused Manzoor alias Manzoor Ali Urnrani and Palio alias Palio Khan Umrani, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shandadkot, vide order, dated 10-9- 2009, while Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,1 .Of 2010 has been filed by the applicant/complainant seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent/accused Shah Murad alias Shah Nawaz Umrani by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber vide order, dated 12-12-2009.
2. ' The facts of the prosecution case are that on 11-2-2009 complainant along with his brothers Israr Ahmed and Fahad, and uncle Arbab Ali Mastoi proceeded for Shandadkot Town for their personal affairs, It is stated that 8/9 months prior to this incident Abdul Jabbar Umrani was killed and his relatives were suspecting his brother Israr Ahmed to be the murderer. When at about 1330 hours, on 11-2-2009, the complainant along with witnesses reached near the house of Jabbar Khoso in Shandadkot Town, they saw. Manthar, Manzoor, Shahnawaz, Palio and Muhammad Hayat, all having pistols, while Suhbat having K.K. Type rifle, all by caste Umrani, residents of Purano Tharo, Taluka Mirokhan and two unidentified persons having rifles in their hands, they could be identified if seen. All accused asked the complainant party to keep silent and asked that they would not spare Israr Ahmed. Saying so, all persons armed with pistols fired upon Israr Ahmed, who received injuries. The persons who were armed with rifles, made aerial firing. After departure of accused, the complainant noticed that his brother succumbed to injuries. The complainant then lodged the F.I.R.
3. As stated above.
4. ' Respondents/accused Manzoor alias Manzoor Ali and Palio alias Palio Khan were initially granted interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shandadkot, but the same was not confirmed.
5. ' After their arrest, they moved an application for grant of post arrest bail, which was granted to them by the learned Sessions Judge, KamberShandadkot vide order, dated 10-9-2009. After that, respondent/accused Shah Murad alias Shah Nawaz filed an application for grant of pre-arrest bail, which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber vide order, dated 12-12-2009.
6. ' The learned counsel for the applicant/complainant contended that the F.I.R. Is prompt and the names of respondents/accused do appear in the F.I.R. With specific roles. He further contended that medical evidence is in conformity with .The ocular evidence. The learned counsel further contended that the brother of applicant/complainant has been killed in a brutal manner. He further contended that per F.I.R. Five persons having pistols fired upon the deceased and the medical evidence, so also the circumstantial evidence fully supports the prosecution version to that effect. He further contended that both the orders passed by the learned trial Court are not speaking orders, The learned trial Court has granted pre-arrest bail to respondent/accused Shah Murad in a heinous offence without disclosing mala fide and ulterior motive on the part of complainant and P. Ws. To involve the respondents. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the bail after arrest granted to respondent/accused Manzoor and Palio, so also pre-arrest bail granted to respondent/accused Shah Murad may be cancelled.
7. ' On the other hand, Mr. Aftab Ahmed Gorar, learned counsel for private respondents in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,241 of 2009 and Mr. Sarfraz Khan Jatoi, advocate for respondent No,1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,1 of 2010 contended that there are general allegations against the respondents and either any specific role is assigned to the respondents in the F.I.R., nor any specific injury is attributed to any of the respondents. They further contended that the learned trial Court has exercised its discretion in favour of respondents in accordance with law and the order of the learned trial Court is well-reasoned and does not call for interference by this court.
8. ' The learned State Counsel supported the contentions advanced by Mr. Rafique Ahmed Abro, learned counsel for applicant/complainant and did not support the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.
9. ' I have considered the submissions advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record.
10. The perusal of F.I.R. Shows that the offence has taken place at 1330 hours on 11-2-2009 and the F.I.R.
11. Was lodged on the same day at 1500 houRs, This clearly shows that the F.I.R. Was lodged with promptitude and the names of respondents did appear in the F.I.R. With specific roles. The Mashirnama of wardat clearly shows that six empties of .30 bore were recovered on the same date from the place of Wardat. The medical evidence also corroborates the ocular evidence, as deceased Israr Ahmed is shown to have received six injuries on his person. Perusal of F.I.R. Shows that the motive that deceased Israr Ahmed was being suspected to be murderer of Abdul Jabbar Umrani, a relative of accused party, further strengthens the case of prosecution. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the matters have failed to point out mala fide on the part of complainant party to falsey implicate the respondents/accused in this case. The learned trial Court has not given any cogent and plausible reason for granting bail to the respondents. The order of the learned trial Court, on the face of it, appears to be arbitrary and perverse. Consequently, after considering all the aspects of the case, I am of the view that the respondents have no case on merits for grant of pre-arrest or post arrest bail, hence the bail granted to all the respondents is hereby cancelled. The learned trial Court is directed to take them in custody. However, after recording of ocular and medical evidence the respondents shall be at liberty to move for grant of bail before the learned trial Court if so advised.
12. ' Above are the reasons of my short order passed on 3-5-2010.