ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN., J---Through the instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant seeks post-arrest bail in Criminal No.188 of 2018, registered at Police Station Badin, u/s 324, 147, 148, 149, 109, 395, 337- F(iii), 504, 337- H(ii) PPC.
2. Concisely facts of the case are that complainant owned some qabooli land in Deh Daftri, which he used to cultivate while accused Jumoon Bughio was not on good terms with them on land affairs. It . is, alleged that on 19.06.2018, the complainant, his brother Ramzan and his Kamdar Noor Muhammad were sitting in Otaq, where at about 05:30 p.m. accused Jumon, Sikandar , Abdul Hameed armed with guns, Nadir armed with repeater , Ali Haider armed with pistol, Razik Dino, Mitho , Photo armed with hatchets, Papo, Ramzan, Umar and Muard armed with cudgels came there and while abusing the complainant party , accused Jumo with intention to kill the complainant fired from his gun, however , due to falling on the earth, he was saved himself. Thereafter , accused Sikandar made straight fire at Ramzan and some pallets were hit on his right shoulder and head. Then accused Ali Haider robbed a mobile phone of Samsung company and cash Rs.5000 from complainant; accused Nadir robbed a mobile and cash of Rs.2000/- from the pocket of Ram zan and thereafter all the accused robbed one Mund Guard Hybrid Seed amount to Rs.35,000/- as well as fertilizer . Thereafter , all accused ran away while abusing the complainant party .
After obtaining order from the Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, Badin, complainant lodged the instant F .I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant inter alia contends that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant in order to pressurize him being comp lainant in Crime No.162/2018 to withdraw the said case or compromise with them (accused); that the F.I.R. is delayed for about 24 days without any proper explanation though the FIR. has shown commission of robbery in day time even in village of Malla community in Deh Dafri, which admittedly is a thickly populated village, no impartial persons have been associated.
Learned counsel further submits that to the contrary the complainant party (present case) has actually committed the offence for which F.I.R. bearing Criminal No.162/2018 was promptly lodged on 19.06.2018, where the complainant of the instant F.I.R. in order to save their skin from the said case has lodged the instant F.I.R; that per F.I.R, admittedly the applicant did not repeat the fire, therefore, his intention' as to the commission of offence under section 324 requires further inquiry; that admittedly no hurt was caused to the complainant by the applicant; that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. He lastly prayed for grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant.
4. Conversely , learned APG opposed this bail application and contended that the name of applicant / accused is mentioned in the F.I.R' with specific role of causing injury to the injured; that there is sufficient evidence available on record connecting the applicant with commission of of fence, as such, he is not entitled for concession of bail..
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that applicant is nominated in the F.I.R., however , the F.I.R. has been lodged with an unexplained delay of 24 days and due consultation and deliberation during such a long period cannot be ruled out. According to the F.I.R, applicant Jumo caused gun shot injury to the complainant, but admittedly he has not repeated the same which prima facie, shows lack of intention on his part to commit murder of the complainant, thus ingredients of section. 324 PPC are not attracted in the prosecution case and as to the vicarious liability of the applicant it can be ascertained after trial; that the applicant is 72 years of age and it does not appeal to a prudent mind that a man of such an age can act in a manner as alleged in the FIR; that no adversarial role has been assigned to the applicant; that although it is mentioned in the F.I.R. that after., the incident complainant party went to Police Station and obtained letter for medical treatment of the injured, but no such N.C. report has been brought on record to substantiate this assertion; that 'admittedly there is counter version with regard to one and same incident and which party is aggressor and which is aggressed one, would be ascertained only after trial of the case; that no recovery has been made from the applicant; that no incriminating evidence has been collected against the applicant; that almost all the accused persons from both the sides are on bail/interim pre-arrest bail, therefore, in the circumstances at hand, the