' MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Applicant/ accused namely Abdul Razzak has filed the instant bail application m crime No, 46 of 2014 of Police Station. Bhittai Nagar for the offences under sections 324, 342, 506(2) and 34, PPC. The similar application filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order 02.06.2014.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the FIR ibid are that the complainant's sister Mst. Naheed Akhtar was married with the applicant on 5.5.2014. On 18.5.2014, said sister of complainant informed his sister namely Mst. Farzana that her husband (applicant) was issuing threats to her and had taken away, her jewelry and money from her It is further alleged that on 26.5.2014 at 1830 hours, complainant in the company of his sister Mst. Farzana went to the house of the applicant situated in Happy Homes, .Hyderabad to see his sister Mst. Naheed Akhtar where applicant Abdul Razzak, Abdul Ghani, Abdul Jabbar and his sisters namely Mst. Rukhsana. Bilqees and Qamarunnisa issued threats to them from the balcony of their house and informed them that their sister Mst. Naheed was not present in the house. The applicant is alleged to have taken out a pistol and issued threats to the complainant that they would commit their murder. He is alleged to have come out of the house duly armed with weapon and straightly fired upon the complainant and his sister Mst.
Farzana, but they saved themselves by taking shelter of the wall. It is further alleged that the complainant after due deliberation with his brothers appeared at Police Station and register the FIR to the above effect.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant on the basis of matrimonial dispute between the parties. Per learned counsel, the present case has been registered with a delay of 10 days after the first incident and with the delay of two days after the occurrence of second incident which is not explained by the complainant. He further argued that the applicant had divorced the sister of the complainant namely Naheed Akhtar on.
27.5.2014 and exactly after one day viz. 28.5.2014 the present FIR was registered against him, which connotes the and mala fide on the part of the complainant. Per learned counsel, no recovery of weapon was affected from the applicant after his arrest and memo. Of place of incident also does not show any recovery of empty from the spot, which according to him, make the case against the applicant to be one of further inquiry. He further argued that since the challan has been submitted in the Trial Court against the applicant, as such, his custody is no more required for further investigation by the prosecution. He further argued that the applicant is government servant and posted as Assistant. Professor in Qasimabad Boys Degree College, Hyderabad, as such. He is not likely to abscond away. He lastly, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. Contrary to it, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the name of applicant is mentioned in the FIR with specific role of issuing fire shots at the complainant party. According to him, the sister of complainant namely Mst. Naheed has got her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. During investigation wherein she has implicated the applicant in the present offence. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the case of Wali Muhammad v. State (2000 P.Cr.LJ 145) and prayed for dismissal of the present bail application of the applicant.
5. Learned DDPP appearing on behalf of the State the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and raised objection to the grant of bail to the applicant. He however, conceded to the fact that front the place of incident, no spent casings of bullets allegedly fired by the applicant were recovered. He also admitted that in the present case no body from the complainant side has sustained any injury.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the material so made available before me.
7. The contents of FIR reflect that the allegations against the applicant are that he made straight fires upon the complainant which however, did not hit any person. The complainant has admitted in the FIR that he got the instant FIR registered against the applicant after due deliberation with his brothers, owing to which, the chances of false implication or improvement in the story of FIR cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the FIR are not Prima facie established from the record as the perusal of memo. Of place of incident shows that no any recovery of empty was effected from the spot. Admittedly, the parties are at variance on account of matrimonial dispute between them which is borne out of the factum of divorce pronounced by the applicant against the sister of the complainant on 27.5.2014. The registration of FIR just after one day of the divorce pronounced by the applicant causes prima facie suspicion over the narration made by the complainant in the FIR particularly when no injury was sustained by the complainant party at the time of incident though the applicant is alleged to have fired upon them straightly. The applicability of section 324, PPC, in the wake of above, requires further inquiry. As far as other offences mentioned in the FIR are, they do not fall within the prohibitory clause of sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The case has been challaned against the applicant, who, therefore, is no more required to the prosecution for further investigation and his incarceration in jail would be of no consequence to the prosecution. The applicant is also stated to be government servant who by virtue of such fact is not likely to abscond away. I have also gone through the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, with due respect the facts of the reported case are entirely different from the present case. As such, the same is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the case.
8. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant has been able to make out a case for grant of bail. Consequently, bail is allowed to the present applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and PR bond in the like amount. To the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
9. Needless to say that observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and will not influence the Trial Court at the time of trial.