' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this application, applicant Muhammad Sharif has sought post arrest bail in Crime No,2/2008, P.S. Rustam, for offences under sections 324, 337-11(2), 148, 149 and 114 P.P.C., after his bail plea was declined by the learned trial Court that is to say the Court to 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, vide order dated 17-10-2008.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 24-1-2008, at 1610 hours, complainant Ghulam Rasool Lashari lodged his F.I.R., at P.S. Rustam for the above offences mainly stating therein that they have got dispute over landed property with Muhammad Sharif. On 24-1-2008, the complainant, his nephews Bashir Ahmed and Rafique Ahmed while were going to their village on motorcycle, at about 0300 hours, when they reached near Yaro-wah, Muhammad Sharif (the applicant), Mahboob Ali, Muhammad Ismail all three armed with Kalashnikovs, Ghous Bux, Hussain Bux, Khuda Bux and Qutub all four armed with guns, came there. Seeing their enemies they tried to drive away, but on the instigation of accused Qutub all the accused overpowered the complainant party and felled them down. Accused Sharif fired from his Kalashnikov straight at Bashir Ahmed with intent to commit his murder which hit him on his chest and he felled down raising cry. Then accused Mehboob Ali and Muhammad Ismail also fired from their Kalashnikovs upon Bashir Ahmed which hit on his both legs. Accused seeing persons working in nearby fields coming went away making aerial firing. Thereafter, complainant arranging conveyance took injured Bashir Ahmed to Civil Hospital Shikarpur wherefrom Bashir Ahmed was referred to CMC Hospital Larkana, and then he took him to CMC Hospital Larkana, whereafter he appeared at Police Station, Rustam and lodged his above F.I.R.
3. After the investigation applicant was sent up with the challan to stand his trial.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been implicated in this case by the complainant party due to dispute over the landed property between them, that there is delay of 25-hours in lodging the F.I.R., that all the prosecution witnesses are related inter se and that Nos.1 and 2 have been opined by the medical officer as Jurh Jaifah, which carries maximum punishment for ten years while injuries Nos.3 to 7 are punishable for three years, and per him, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. He relied upon the case of Muhammad Umar v. The State (PLD 2004 SC 477), and Sikander Ali v. The State (1999 M LD 212).
5. Mr.Abdul Hakeem Brohi, learned advocate for the complainant has contended that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has been properly explained, and specific role of causing firearm injury to injured Bashir Ahmed on his vital part namely, chest has been attributed to the present applicant and the offence with which the applicant is charged fails within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. The learned State Counsel also opposed the grant of bail to the present applicant by adopting the same arguments as that of advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed before the Court. I find that the name of applicant figures in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing firearm injury to Bashir Ahmed on his chest, the medical evidence is also in line with the ocular evidence and the question as to delay of 25 hours in lodgment of the F.I.R., has been answered in the F.I.R. Itself. A perusal of the F.I.R. Reflects that injured Bashir Ahmed, who was having multiple injuries on his person, caused by firearm, was first taken by the complainant to Civil Hospital Shikarpur, wherefrom he was referred to CMC Hospital, Larkana and then the complainant shifted him to CMC Hospital, Larkana which is at the distance of about 90- kilometers from Shikarpur, whereafter the complainant appeared at P.S. Rustam and lodged his F.I.R. Obviously a night was intervening in between the incident etc. And the report at Police Station, Rustam and the above explanation for delay in lodging the F.I.R. Offered by the complainant prima facie being rational cannot be brushed aside at the stage of bail, and the motive is also directed against applicant Muhammad Sharif. In the similar circumstances apex Court in case of Waqas Ahmed and another v. The State 2003 SCMR 1496, declined the bail to the petitioners, following observations:--- "Complainant had, prima facie, explained the delay of 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R. By stating that he had been attending his injured brother who was brought first to hospital at Gujranwala which referred his case to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Accused had been attributed specific role along with motive."
8. The case law relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant is distinguishable from the facts of the present case, as in case of Muhammad Umar v. The State (Supra) the petitioner had caused injuries on the outer side of right leg's middle part of injured Shahid Iqbal, therefore, he was directed to be released on bail whereas in this case, the present applicant has allegedly caused firearm injury on the chest of the injured. In case of Sikander Ali v. The State (Supra), applicant Sikandar and two co-accused, namely, Haji Misri and Sarwar armed with guns had fired at the car, which resulted in the injuries to Saved and Rustam and there was no specific injury assigned to applicant Sikander Ali and all the co-accused were let of by the police finding them falsely involved, therefore, the applicant Sikander Ali was granted bail.
9. In view of what has been discussed above I am of the considered opinion that the applicant Muhammad Sharif has failed to make out his case for grant of bail, therefore, his bail application was dismissed vide short order dated 6-4-2009, and these are the reasons for the same.
10. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application the same shall not influence the mind of the learned trial Court while deciding the case.