Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2010 YLR 3010

MUJAHID ALI vs THE STATE

Citation2010 YLR 3010
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Bail Application No. S-131 of 2010
Date2010-07-08
Judge(s)Muhammad Tasnim
ResultBail granted

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.--- Present applicant has applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions JudgeKhairpur but the same was dismissed vide order dated 3-2-2010. Failing aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present bail application has been filed.

2. ' Relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on 3-7-2009, the complainant along with his brother Mureed, maternal uncle Imdadullah and relatives Abdul Jabbar was present in his house and Imdadullah was called at outer door on which he, Mureed, Imdadullah and Abdul Jabbar came out together and saw accused Shahid and Mujahid who asked Mureed (brother) to accompany them, to the Otaq of Sikandar alias Muhammad Hayat for talks. It is alleged that the complainant party reached at otaq of Sikandar alias Muhammad Hayat at about 10-30 p.m. Where accused Shahid took out the pistol from the fold of his shalwar and fired shot upon Mureed by saying that he (Mureed) is creating problems for them and accused Mujahid also took out pistol from the fold of his shalwar and fired upon Mureed and he died on the spot.

3. ' During the investigation the police arrested present applicant Mujahid on 19-7-2009 along with .30 bore unlicensed pistol loaded with four live bullets and disclosed that it is same which he used while committing the murder of deceased Mureed the brother of the complainant. The police submitted challan on 5-8-2009, showing the name of accused Shahid as absconder who was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 22-10-2009.

4. ' Notice of this bail application was issued to the complainant which was served but none appeared on behalf of the complainant.

5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that even if the story of the prosecution is believed but it no where assigns any role which connect the present applicant with the commission of offence. He has invited my attention to the contents of the F.I.R. And has argued that from the perusal of record it appears that the accused Shahid took out a pistol from the fold of his Shalwar and directly fired upon the brother of the complainant namely Mureed with intention to commit his murder which hit him on his face. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant has been un-necessarily involved in the present case by making allegation in the F.I.R. That present applicant also took out a pistol from the fold of his Shalwar and fired but no one was injured. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that from the site inspection only one empty was recovered and from the medical report it appears that there was only one wound to the deceased Mureed and as per medical report, there was only one injury showing on the body of the deceased but no other injury was found on the body. He has further argued that the present applicant has been implicated due to old enmity.

6. ' On the other hand the learned D.P.G. Has argued that the applicant is not entitled to bail as he was holding arm in his hand at the time of occurrence. He has further argued that no doubt that no injury was caused to the deceased from the firing made by the present applicant but it was a dangerous affair and could have injured any one. There is no such material available to support the above arguments of the learned D . P.G.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned D.P.G. And have perused the record.

8. The allegation against the present applicant is that he was present at the time of occurrence and fired but no one was injured. There is direct allegations against the accused Shahid that he had fired upon the deceased Mureed and consequently due to his firing Mureed sustained only one injury but died. There is no evidence that fire made by the present applicant has injured any one or, he has helped Shahid in killing Mureed. From the material available on the record it is a fit case of further inquiry and the applicant is entitled to bail. .I have granted the bail to the present applicant by a short order dated 8-7-2010 and these are the reasons for the same.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch