AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.----Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 21-12-2010, passed by the learned V-Additional Sessions 'Judge, Shikarpur, in Criminal Bail Application No,181 of 2010 emanating from Crime No,67 of 2009, registered at Police Station Staurt Ganj, Shikarpur, under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 114, P.P.C., whereby the bail application of the present applicant/ accused was dismissed, the applicant/ accused has approached this Court seeking bail.
2. Brief facts for the purposes of disposal of the present bail application and the prosecution story stated in the F.I.R., are that on 22-4-2009, at 11-30 a.m., near Naj Hotel, Staurt Gang, Shikarpur, applicant/accused Peerano Sundrani along with six others, named in the F.I.R. and three unidentified persons, being armed with Pistols, allegedly intercepted complainant Muhammad Hayat Sundrani, his brother Muhammad Yaqoob, son Hakim Ali and nephew Mahboob Ali and on the instigation of applicant Peerano Sundrani, all other accused persons opened fires upon complainant's brother Muhammad Yaqoob Sundrani, as a result of which Muhammad Yaqoob Sundrani and five other persons named in the F.I.R., including two women, who were available at the spot at relevant time, sustained firearm injuries, hence such F.I.R was lodged by complainant at Police Station Staurt Ganj, Shikarpur on the same day i,e,, 22-4-2009, at 7-00 p.m. Complainant's brother Muhammad Yagoob Sundrani later on succumbed to injuries.
3. During investigation, none from the accused persons, named in the F.I.R, could be arrested by the police, therefore, the case was challaned under section 512, Cr.P.C.; showing all the accused persons, including present applicant,, as absconders. However, the applicant was subsequently arrested on 24-9-2010 and sent up to stand trial. Thereafter, the charge was framed.
4. It is, inter alia; contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant crime at the behest of complainant party, with whom there is admitted previous 'enmity. Per learned Counsel, the applicant/accused is the Nekmard of the locality and is an ailing.' person of advanced age of about 80 years. He further contended that the complainant, who claims to be eyewitness of the. incident did not receive any injury in spite of alleged indiscriminate firing by the accused persons nominated in the instant crime. Learned counsel further submitted that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the present applicant/accused, nor any specific role has been assigned to the applicant/accused of having caused any firearm injury, either to the deceased or any other injured person. Per learned counsel, in the F.I.R, there, is allegation of instigation against The applicant/accused, whereas there is no mention in the F.I.R. as to upon whose firing the deceased received fire-arm injuries and succumbed to such injuries. The learned counsel in support of his contentions placed reliance on an unreported order of this Court, dated 4-11-2009 passed in Criminal Bail Application No,565 of 2009 re Bahar Jatoi v. The State, whereby bail was granted to the accused, looking at his advanced age.
5. Conversely, the learned State Counsel and the complainant opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused. The learned State Counsel contended that since the applicant is involved in a heinous crime, of murder, who has been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role, therefore, he may not be granted bail at this stage.
6. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record. On tentative assessment of the record, it appears that the applicant/accused has been nominated in the instant crime with the role of instigation to other accused persons, who, as per prosecution story, fired at the complainant party, out of which one Muhammad Yaqoob received firearm injuries and later-on died. None of the accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. was arrested at the spot, which, as per allegations, was thickly populated area of bazaar. The complainant, his son and other relative, who were allegedly present at the place of incident did not receive any injury. The applicant/accused, who was produced in Court on production order from District Jail, Shikarpur, appeared to be a very aged person with feeble health, having no teeth in his mouth and was shivering in Court on account of his ailing health and advanced age. On a query of this Court as to his age, he claimed to be of 80 years of age. The F.I.R is silent about the fact identifying the person, who fired at the deceased at the instigation of the present applicant/accused.
7. In view of hereinabove facts, at this stage, a reasonable doubt is created about the truthfulness of the prosecution story, whereas the involvement of, the present applicant/accused in the instant crime, looking at his advanced age and feeble health, also appears to be doubtful. I am of the view, that matter requires further inquiry. The case has been challaned and the applicant/accused is in jail since 24-9-2010, therefore, no useful purpose will served by keeping him in jail. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another reported as PLD 1996 SC 241 and the case of Muhammad Ashraf v. The State reported as 2007 M LD 882 Lahore.
8. Accordingly, the applicant/accused is granted bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.