1. 'MALIK MUHAMMAD AQIL AWAN, J.--In this case an F.I.R. Has been lodged on 18-10-2008 under Crime No,34/08 Police Station Pithoro District Umerkot under sections 324, 392, 337F(i), 337H(ii), 109, 504, 506(2) and 337A(i), P. P. C .
2. All the four accused persons are nominated in the F.I.R. Inasmuch as applicant No,3 Muhammad Uris has been attributed role of causing Rifle fire which hit the complainant/injured Haji Khanghar Rajar on the right leg, whereas applicant No,2 Abdullah was shown to be armed with hatchet, applicant No,1 Hayat was shown to be armed with Pistol, whereas applicant No,4 Sukhio was also shown to be armed with hatchet and were alleged a general role of causing injuries. Further role was assigned to applicant No,1 Hayat that he on the Pistol point snatched sum of Rs,50,000 from the complainant/injured along with some necessary documents. All the four accused according to the learned counsel for the applicants were arrested on 27-3-2009 although the F.I.R. Was lodged on 18-10-2008. Learned counsel for complainant has informed that applicants had previously been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court and after submission of challan under section 173 Cr.P.C. By the investigation agency, such pre-arrest interim bail order was recalled and resultantly accused persons were sent to Jail and that is the reason that they are in the Jail since 27-3-2009.
3. Under such circumstances the post-arrest bail application was moved before the trial Court which was rejected under order dated 1-4-2009. The learned trial Court has recorded its reasons to refuse the bail application in the last paragraph of its order and the main reason for refusing the bail prevailing to the trial Court was that since earlier pre-arrest bail application was dismissed, therefore, present post-arrest bail application is also liable to be dismissed. The learned Judge has absolutely failed to appreciate that the consideration for the grant of pre-arrest bail and post- arrest bail are absolutely different. The learned Judge has disposed of this bail application in a very coursory manner without appreciating the role assigned to the accused persons, the over all punishment provided by the law under independent sections, and the evidence collected by investigation agency to connect all the accused persons with the crime in the light of roles assigned to them. Such approach of the learned trial Judge is not appreciable and he must improve his quality of writing judgment/bail orders.
4. 'That I have been informed that the main offence in the present circumstances is section 337-F(vi)
5. P.P.C. Which is punishable with seven years' R.I. As well as Daman. This is the injury alleged to have been caused by applicant Uris with Rifle shot whereas injury No,2 is under section 337-A(i) P.P.C.
6. Punishable for two years, injury No,3 is under section 337-F(ii) P.P.C. Which is punishable with Daman and three years' R.I. Injury Nos.4 to 8 stood for other kind hurts falling under section 337-L(ii)
7. P.P.C. Punishable for two years. On the basis of these injuries section 324, P.P.C. Has been added in the F.I.R. So far accused Abdullah and Sukhio are concerned, they have not been attributed any injury which is serious in nature and caused on the vital part of the body. Therefore, in my view accused Abdullah and Sukhio are attributed the injuries which fall under the sections are bailable and they are entitled to bail as a matter of right. So far their involvement on the basis of section 109 P.P.C. Is concerned that is a question of evidence, yet to be brought on record and proved by the prosecution before the trial Court.
8. 'So far accused. Hayat is concerned he is stated to be armed with Pistol, but no firing effective or ineffective is alleged against him. The only role assigned to him is that on the Pistol point he snatched/robbed Rs,50,000 and some unspecified necessary documents. According to the learned counsel for the applicant neither amount is recovered from him nor any unspecified document is recovered from him. The learned counsel has further stated that alleged Pistol which was never used also not recovered. In this view of the matter so far the offence under section 392 P.P.C. Is concerned, no material evidence is available on record to connect accused Havat with the offence under section 392 P.P.C. Except the bare allegation in the F.I.R. Which finds no corroboration in the police papers. Therefore, according to me he is also entitled to bail.
9. 'The main accused in this case appears to be Muhammad Uris who allegedly caused fire-arm injury on right side of the leg which had been categorized in the Medical Certificate under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. And punishable with seven years R.I. Along with Daman.
10. 'The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has relied upon two judgments one in the case of "Muhammad Umar v. The State" reported in PLD 2004 Supreme Court 477. In that case the offence under section 324 P.P.C. Was based on injury caused on the outer side of right leg's middle part. In the said case bail had been refused by trial Court as well as High Court. After the arrest of the accused, challan was submitted and trial had been commenced. The Honourable Supreme Court on perusal of the Medical Certificate concluded that petitioner fired upon the outer side of the leg's middle part of the injured and therefore he had no intention to fire upon the vital part of the injured Shahid Iqbal for the purpose of launching murderous assault. Moreover challan having been submitted and the trial commenced, petitioner was no more required for the purpose of investigation and no such consideration bail was granted. The second case relied upon the learned counsel is case of "Umar Hayat v. The State" reported in 2008 SCM R 1621. In this case allegations against the petitioner were who had fired 04/05 shots from his Pistol at complainant out of them one fire hit on the left knee of the complainant, which injury fell within the ambit of section 337-F(v) P.P.C. Which is punishable with five years. In this case bail was granted by the trial Court and same was cancelled by the High Court. The Honourable Supreme Court restored the order of trial Court to the effect of grant of bail with the observation that High Court failed to observe whether bail granting order was arbitrary, capricious or fanciful. Both the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants in support of the case of Muhammad Uris, support his contention as the over all punishment in the main offence alleged against applicant Muhammad Uris is seven years which do not fall within the prohibitory clause.
11. In above view of the facts I grant bail to all the four applicants on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with PR Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court. Since the learned counsel for complainant has voiced that complainant is a respectable person and has been caused fire arm injury by the accused who is being granted bail, therefore, trial Court be directed to hear and complete this case within six months from the date of communication of this order. The request of learned counsel appears to be quite reasonable and accordingly trial Court is directed to complete this case within the period of six months from communication of this order and failure on the part of trial' Court to comply with this order will be viewed as inefficiency on his part and for such omission reasons are to be communicated to MIT-I at Principal Seat of this Court.
12. In case the accused persons, who have been granted bail, purposely put hindrance in the proceedings of the trial, this will give rise to a right to complainant to apply for cancellation of their bail.
13. 'In above terms the bail application stands disposed of.