1. ORDER MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---The applicant seeks bail after arrest in Crime B No. 17 of 2010 registered with Police Station, A-section Khairpur, under sections 302, 324,148,149, P.P.C. The bail application moved before the trial Court on behalf of the applicant was dismissed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, vide order dated 20-5-2010.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as set out in the F.I.R., are that on 2-2-2010 complainant Atta Muhammad lodged F.I.R., alleging inter alia therein that his son Muhammad Khan was studying in Shah Abdul Latif University. Allah Dino and Shoukat Ali are also his relatives and studying in the said university. On the same day, complainant had gone to university for some work and when reached Canteen, he saw his relatives having a cup of tea, where his son Muhammad Khan and his friends Zeeshan, Qamarueddin were also coming towards Canteen. In the meantime, accused Hafeez, Sabir with knives, Abid with knife of clip, Jameel Abbass, Shakeel Ahmed, having knives came.
3. Accused Hafeez abused and disclosed that they will not spare the complainant's son and his relatives, as latter had insulted the accused. Saying so, accused Hafeez Mangi caused knife blow on the chest, left arm shoulder of complainant's son Muhammad Khan, while accused Sabir also caused injuries to Muhammad Khan at his left side of abdomen and right ankle with knife so also accused Abid caused him injuries at his right side neck and face with knife of clip, who fell down raising cries. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. That accused Jameel caused injuries to Qamaruddin at his left side and other parts of body with knife while accused Shakeel caused injuries to Zeeshan Soomro at his head and other parts of body with knife. Due to intervention of persons; gathered there and on seeing them coming accused the accused ran away. Complainant took his inured son and others to civil hospitals Khairpur for treatment. Where his son succumbed to the injuries.
4. Consequently above noted F.I.R. Was lodged.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the only allegation against the applicant in the F.I.R. Is that he injured one Zeeshan and caused injuries on his head and other parts of body; but said Zeeshan did not present himself to the doctor for his medical examination. He further says that doctor from Civil Hospital; Khairpur vide his letter dated 1-3-2010 addressed to the S.H.O. Concerned to produce Zeeshan for medical examination, but till date said Zeeshan was not produced before medico-legal examination. He says that since medical evidence is missing, it cannot be judged as to whether alleged injury caused by the applicant was on the vital part of the body or it was fatal injury. From the conduct of said Zeeshan, it appears that he might have received only scars, that is why he is not presenting himself to the doctor for medical examination. Learned counsel further submits that there are direct allegations against co-accused Hafeez, Sabir and Abid for killing one Muhammad Khan, but there is no allegation against the applicant for killing anybody.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. Though opposed the grant of bail to the applicant, but he has admitted that no medical report is available in respect of injured Zeeshan as he did not present himself to the doctor for his medical examination. Learned A.P.-G. Further says that other co- accused Abid had also filed bail application before this Court, but no relief was extended to him except direction was issued to the trial Court for conclusion of the trial within a period of five months on receipt of the order. He says that similar direction be issued in this case as well.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
8. To substantiate the contents of F.I.R., medical evidence is called for which is missing at this stage.
9. This case requires further enquiry as to whether any injury was caused by the applicant or not. In this view of the matter, I admit the present applicant to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
10. Since the direction for conclusion of trial within a period of five months have already been passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 594 of 2010, similar direction is issued in this case as well.
11. In view of above; bail application is disposed of accordingly.