' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---The applicant is booked in Crime No,99 of 2009, under sections 302, 324, 504 and 34 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Dadu. Applicant initially applied for bail before the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, who heard the bail application and dismissed the same per order dated 15-10-2010
2. The case of the prosecution as set out in the F.I.R. Is that, on 5-3-2009 complainant Abdul Razzak lodged his F.I.R. At Police Station Dadu, alleging therein that on the day of incident he along with his cousin Muhib Ali, Ali Gul and Mukhtar, after attending the hearing of case before Sessions Court, Dadu, was returning back and when reached at Railway Crossing R.O. Office, WAPDA, they were intercepted by accused namely Ayaz, Akhtar, Shabbir and Abdul Razzak. Thereafter, accused Ayaz, Akhtar and Shabbir took out pistols from the fold of their respective shalwars and while abusing, they fired upon Muhib which hit on his chest, arms and legs, who on sustaining firearm injuries fell down. Thereafter, accused Abdul Razzak also took out pistol from the fold of his shalwar and fired at the complainant party, which missed. There-after, the accused fled away. Complainant saw that Muhib Ali had received 13 firearm injuries on his chest, chin, left arm and left leg and was died at the spot. Such F.I.R. Was lodged at police station.
3. In support of above bail application, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that three accused persons namely Ayaz, Akhtar and Shabbir have been nominated in the F.I.R. He further says that specific role has been assigned to all the three accused persons causing as many as 17 injuries to the deceased. He says that accused Akhtar and Shabbir were initially granted interim pre-arrest bail, which was subsequently confirmed on the ground that on the relevant date accused Akhtar and Shabbir were not present at the scene and they were booked in some other case, which was pending before the trial Court at Karachi and they had gone to Karachi to attend such case. On such plea, the two applicants named above were granted bail. Learned counsel says that since the statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to two accused, named above, appears to be a false one, therefore, in the circumstances, false implication of the present applicant cannot be ruled out. He further says that case of the present applicant is similarly placed to that of other co-accused and he is also entitled to same treatment. Learned counsel says that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the present applicant and he was also charged under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance and after the trial of such case, he has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Dadu. Learned counsel for the applicant further says that there is an inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R. For about 07 hours, though the police station was at the distance of half kilometer and the police also reached at the scene immediately thereafter.
Lastly, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that about two years have passed but the trial has not yet concluded, therefore, this is a case of hardship and applicant otherwise is entitled for enlargement on bail on the statutory ground, as delay in the trial is not attributable to the present applicant. He further says that the present applicant is not the previously convicted offender.
4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.-G. Has opposed the grant of bail and has submitted that applicant was nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role, which was supported by the prosecution witnesses and the learned trial Court rightly rejected the bail application of the present applicant.
He further says that the case of the applicant is not similarly placed and he is not entitled to similar treatment.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.
6. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case for the reason that he is a prosecution witness in Crime No,126 of 2006, under sections 302 and 506 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Mehar against the present complainant. It is also apparent that crime allegedly took place at 1025 hours and A F.I.R. Was registered at 1750 hours, though police station was at about half kilometer away and such delay has not been plausibly explained by the prosecution. With regard to recovery it is the case of the prosecution that on the pointation of present applicant the weapon was recovered, but for such recovery, the applicant was charged under section 13(e) Arms Ordinance and was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Dadu who subsequently acquitted him. The matter does not end here, perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that similar role was assigned to co-accused Akhtar and Shabbir, who took the plea of alibi before the learned trial Court and their plea was accepted and their interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed. This fact itself creates doubt in the case of prosecution and prima facie the present applicant is also entitled to bail, as this case requires further enquiry for the aforementioned facts in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is also pointed out that as many as 17 injuries were caused to the deceased which normally cannot be caused by one accused, who was allegedly having one pistol. This aspect of the matter also requires probe.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this bail application is allowed and the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,500,000 (Five Lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
8. Learned A.P.-G. Requests that a copy of this order may be supplied to him. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the learned A.P.-G. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.