1. ' MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.--- This bail application is directed against the order, dated 29-5- 2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi in Crime No,29 of 2008 registered at Police Station Khensar for offence punishable under sections 302, 324, '337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-H(ii), 504, 114, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. ' The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 3-11-2008 at 1200 hours, complainant Mitho lodged F.I.R.
3. At Police Station Khensar, alleging therein that he owns cattle which were being looked after by his son Abbas. About one week back, there was exchange of harsh words in between the grazers of complainant party and of village Walho Dars over matter of grazing of cattle, on which Jano Dars and others were annoyed and were in the search of opportunity.
4. ' As usual, the son of complainant along with other grazers left for grazing the cattle in the agricultural land (Begoti) of Adam Nohri. After some time, complainant received information that quarrel has been started in between their grazers and the grazers of Village Walho Dars on which complainant went there running where he saw his son Abbas lying on the ground and blood was oozing from his head. Complainant also saw Yousif, Muhammad, Sodho and Roshan all by caste Nohri in injured condition. In the meantime other co-villagers also reached, there. Complainant party found Abbas sustaining hatchet injuries and lying dead. On inquiry, the other injured persons disclosed to the complainant that they were grazing their cattle in the agricultural land (Begoti) of Adam Nohri, when at about 0830 hours, applicant/accused Jano .Armed with hatchet, Jumo with gun, Sikiladho, Doro, with hatchets and Haleem with Lathi, encircled and asked them to take away the cattle as they wanted to graze their cattle in that land, on which complainant party told them that the land in dispute belongs to them. Thereafter, accused Jumo instigated the others not to spare them, on which the applicant/accused Jano caused hatchet bloW to Abbas on his head and Doro caused hatchet blow to Muhammad. Accused Sikiladho caused hatchet blow on the head of Yousif whereas accused Haleem caused Lathi blow to P.Ws. Sodho, Roshan and others on their head and other parts of the body. They after receiving the injuries fell down, thereafter accused went away while abusing them and making aerial firing. On apprising of such facts by P.W. Yousif and others, the complainant left the villagers over the dead body and injured persons, went to police station where he lodged the F. I R.
5. ' The learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that the applicant/accused is innocent and is falsely involved in this case as he is Nekmard of the village. On the day of incident he was at.
6. Karachi as he was ill. He further contended that there is counter-version of the incident, all the accused persons from both sides have been granted bail and the case has been challenged therefore, he prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. ' On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General assisted by the learned Advocate for complainant vehemently opposed to the grant of pre-arrest bail.
8. ' I have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
9. Obviously, this is a day time incident and parties are known to each other, hence there is no question of mistaken identity. F.I.R. Is lodged without any delay. This is a case in which one person lost his life and four persons sustained injuries at the hands of accused persons. The fatal role is assigned to the applicant/accused that he gave hatchet blow on the head of deceased Abbas which resulted in his death. The version of F.I.R. Is fully supported by injured P.Ws. As well as by medical evidence. The post-mortem note shows that the deceased sustained single incised injury on head which according to Medical Officer is sufficient for his death. Furthermore, the applicant is shown as absconder in the charge-sheet. So far counter-case, as argued by learned counsel for the applicant, is concerned, that case was registered on the next day of incident and in that case place of incident was different therefore, this ground is not helpful to the applicant/accused at this stage. The offence is heinous one and is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
10. ' It is pertinent to mention here that this is a pre-arrest bail application and the applicant has to show the mala fide but he has failed to do so, hence prima facie the learned counsel for applicant/accused has failed to make out a case for pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application is dismissed. However, the observations made above are tentative in nature and would not affect the trial of the case.