' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this application, applicant seeks post-arrest Bail in Crime No,41 of 2012 of P.S. Tando Bago for offences punishable under sections 302, 324, 114, 504, 34 P. P. C .
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that on 26-5-2012 complainant Abdul Aziz, his father Ahmed Khan, brother Rashid Latif and cousin Abdul Majeed went to their land for excavation of Sim Nala (chhandan) to drain the water. At about 9-30 am, accused Allah Bachayo alias Bachoo armed with gun, Ali Ghulam alias Ali armed with hatchet Muhammad Hassan alias Hassan empty-handed came there. They asked the complainant party that they had already restrained them from draining the water. Accused Muhammad Hassan alias Hassan instigated other accused persons to kill the complainant party, on which accused Allah Bachayo alias Bachoo Mallah fired with his gun upon father of the complainant which hit hip near his shoulder and he fell down. Accused Ali Ghulam caused hatchet blow to P.W. Rashid Latif with intention to commit his murder, which hit him on right side of his abdomen. Accused Ali Ghulam also caused hatchet blows to P.W. Abdul Majeed on his back and other parts of the body. Complainant raised cries which attracted P.Ws. Abdul Hameed and Shandi who came there and then accused ran away. Complainant brought the injured at Taluka Hospital Tando Bago but his father Ahmed Khan succumbed to his injuries on the way.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is counter case lodged by the applicant party in which the applicant party had received injuries but the complainant did not disclose about the same. Learned counsel further contended that as per F.I.R. The quarrel between the parties over discharging the water was existing, therefore, false implication of the applicant due to such quarrel could not be ruled out. He contended that during the incident, three persons from the applicant party including a woman have been injured by the complainant, therefore, it is yet to be determined by the trial Court as to which party was aggressor and aggressed upon. According to learned counsel, there is no repetition of fire on the part of the applicant. He further argued that no independent person has been cited as witness. He submitted that co-accused Ali Ghulam and Muhammad Hassan have been granted bail, therefore, applicant is also entitled for same treatment under rule of consistency. He has relied upon the case of Abdul Hameed v. Zahid Hussain alias Papu Chaman Patiwala and others (2011 SCM R 606), Qadir Bux v. The State (2011 M LD 908).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail plea of the applicant and argued that the applicant is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing firearm injury to the deceased. He further contended that crime weapon recovered from the house of the applicant on his pointation prima facie connect him with commission of offence. He further argued that police recovered two empty cartridges from the place of incident. Learned counsel submitted that P.Ws in their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements have supported the prosecution case and there is sufficient material available on record to connect the applicant with commission of offence. Learned counsel argued that mere counter-cases is no ground for grant of bail if there is direct and strong evidence against the accused. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the case of Arif Din v. Amil Khan and another (2005 SCM R 1402), Munawar Ali v. The State (2005 YLR 1514), and Sher Muhammad v. The State (2008 SCM R 1451).
6. Learned Assistant Prosecutor-General Sindh adopted the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant and opposed the bail application.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The record reveals that the applicant is nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role of causing firearm injury to the deceased has been assigned to him. There is no allegation that any other persons caused firearm upon the deceased except the applicant. The crime weapon i.e, gun used in commission of offence was also recovered on the pointation of the applicant from his house. Besides, the empty cartridges were also recovered from the place of incident. The P.Ws in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Also supported the prosecution case. So far the case of co-accused is concerned, same is not similar to the case of the applicant. The allegations against the co-accused was of causing injuries while role of committing murder by firearm has been attributed to the applicant, therefore, rule of consistency does not apply in the case of applicant. The cross-case is no ground for grant of bail as every case is IB to be decided on its own merits.
' In the case of Arif Din v. Amil Khan and another (supra), it has been held that tentative assessment is permissible at bail stage and mere existence of cross-case cannot be a ground for grant of bail.
Bail to all the parties cannot be granted simply because of the existence of cross-version and without making tentative assessm ent of given circumstances Courts cannot be made bound to consider every cross-case a case of further inquiry and thus grant bail to all the persons involved therein.
' In the case of Sher Muhammad v. The State (supra), it was held that accused had allegedly caused firearm injury to the deceased which was corroborated by the postmortem. Prima facie grounds were available to believe that the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged and accordingly bail was refused. In the present case also the applicant caused firearm injury to the deceased which has been corroborated by the postmortem report. The eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution version and witnessed the incident. The crime weapon was also recovered from the house of the applicant on his pointation, therefore, there is sufficient material to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence.
8. So far the case-laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, same are not applicable in the case in hand. In the case of Qadir Bux v. The State (supra), there was fight between two groups over the way of watercourse from the lands of complainant and the applicant had gave lathi blows to the deceased and other accused also caused lathi blows to other persons.
In the present case the applicant made firearm injury to the deceased which showed his intention to commit murder of the deceased, therefore, this case is not applicable in the present case.
' In the case of Abdul Hameed v. Zahid Hussain alias Papu Chaman Patiwala and others (supra), the High Court had granted the bail to the accused persons which was challenged before the honourable Supreme Court and it was held that place of incident in the both the F.I.Rs, was the same, therefore, it was held by the honourable Supreme Court that such point can be properly thrashed out at the trial. In the present case, the place of incident is shown different. The complainant has shown the place of incident his land while accused party in their F.I.R. Shown their land to be the place of incident.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that according to tentative assessment, there is sufficient material available on record to connect the applicant with commission of offence, therefore, his case does not fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, bail application merits no consideration, which is dismissed.
11. Needless to say that the observation made herein above are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the time of trial.