1. I propose to dispose of Criminal Bail Application No. 80 of 1982 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 133 of 1982 by this single order. While the first is an application for bail before arrest on behalf of Muhammad Yaqub, the second is one for cancellation of the interim bail granted to him; at the instance of Mst. Zuhran, who is the complai--nant and sister of the injured.
2. I have heard Mr. A. Q. Halepota for accused Muhammad Yaqub, Mr. S. Murtaza Hussain for Mst.
3. Zuhran and Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Additional Advocate-General, for the State. Mr. Ibrahim Memon has not opposed the confirmation of the interim bail, and has not supported the application for cancellation of bail.
4. The brief facts of the case are that injured Abdul Majid was staying with his aunt Mst. Zuhran in House No. 2044-A, in Tando Wall Muhammad, Hyderabad. A report was lodged by Mst. Zuhran with the Market Police Station, Hyderabad--on 3rd November 1981 at 10 p.m. Alleging that while she was 'sitting in her house, she beard fire-arm reports which persuaded her to go out. She found that injured Abdul Majid who had earlier left the house without even taking his dinner, was returning, and at that time he had injuries on his person. It was stated that the injured was bleeding and, on being asked, injured Abdul Majid informed the complainant Mst. Zuhran that when he was passing by the house of accused Muhammad Yaqub, the latter stated that he would not spare him and fired three consecutive shots from revolver or pistol, one out of which struck him on his chest. The injured further disclosed that Fezoo and Abdul Razak came on the scene, but only after the accused had gone away to his house. The allegation was made in the first information report that the accused had intended to cause fatal injuries to Abdul Majid. It was also stated in the report that there was a back--ground of litigation between the parties on account of some cases before the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. These cases appear to be presumably on account of dispute over the partition of property.
5. After the report, the investigation started. The accused appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad to seek an order for bail before arrest. Such an order was declined by him vide his Order dated 30th January, 1982. It seems from the order that the grant of the bail to the accused was resisted by the complainant party who had appeared before the Sessions Court, and made an application for cancel--lation of bail. The accused then moved this Court for' bail before arrest and on 3rd February, 1982, interim bail was granted to the accused which has come for confirmation. In the meantime, Mst. Zuhran, the complai--nant, has moved an application for cancellation of the bail.
6. Mr. S. Murtaza Hussain has contended before me that the report in this case was very prompt, the name of the accused was mentioned therein and, besides, a graphic description of the nature of the assault was given. That no doubt is true, but it cannot be overlooked that there was deep seated enmity between the parties. A suit bearing No. 271 of 1980 was filed by the mother of the Complainant, viz. Grand-mother of the injured, before the III Extra Joint Civil Judge, Hyderabad in which the accused Muhammad Yaqub was arrayed as a Defendant. This suit related to ancestral property. By a -judgment dated 28th November, 1981, the Civil Judge had dismissed the suit holding that the Plaintiff (grand--mother of the injured) was not entitled to any relief. Mr. S. Murtaza Hussain stated that an appeal is pending against the said judgment. Further to that, the accused has placed before me a certified copy of the charge-sheet submitted by the Market Police Station, Hyderabad, in the Court of Fifth Extra Joint Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad. This charge-sheet shows that injured Abdul Majid was an accused in a case under section 302/307/324, P. P. C. At the instance of one Bhan Bhen. In the calendar of witnesses, accused Muhammad Yaqub is shown as a person who is to depose for the prosecution in that case. The accused has also placed before me a certified copy of another charge-sheet submitted by the Market Police in the Court of Additional City Magistrate No. 6, Hyderabad for alleged commission of offences under section 324/452, 427/34, P. P. C. This charge sheet was submitted on 10th October, 1980 and the document shows that the case was institut--ed at the instance of accused Muhammad Yaqub, and the injured Abdul Majid was shown as an accused in that case. It would thus be seen that there is a background of serious enmity between the parties. A further circumstance also needs to be mentioned. During the pendency of these applications in this Court, the injured Abdul Majid had been arrested by the Police at Hyderabad and remanded to jail custody. The injured had been called to this Court as there was a contest on the point of seriousness of the injury. The injured made a statement (though not recorded by me) stating that he had been implicated in the case by accused Muhammad Yaqub. All these circumstances will clearly indicate that there is a background of enmity between the parties.
7. The next point that has engaged my attention is the nature of the injury. In the F. I. R. It is stated that three shots were fired, but admittedly only one injury has been caused. The medical certificate has been produced as Annexure ---D--- to the bail application, and the said document discloses that the injured was discharged from the hospital within four days. What is more that while the first information report alleges serious injury on the chest, the medical certificate shows a fire-arm injury on the right shoulder. As stated above, the injured has been called to this Court and the injury has been seen. In the Order dated 16th March, 1982, a note has been made that the injury was on the right side of the chest near armpit, and the mark of the injury was superficial and it had not damaged any limb. Normally, fire-arms injury with revolver or pistol leaves some depth at the point of attack but this injury had no depth. However, I would nut like to state any thing more at this stage, as it is likely to prejudice the case of one or the other party. It may also be stated that in Annexure `E', the injury has been described to be grevious, although it has not been stated whether any bone has been fractured or not.
8. Mr. Ibrahim Memon, the learned Additional Advocate-General, has also invited my attention to the mashirnama of the scene of occurrence which does not show any mark on the road, nor was any article like cartridge or bullet seen. This is a further circumstance which might be of benefit to the accused. Admittedly, nothing was recovered from the accused. On the other hand, there is no eye- witness of the occurrence and the prosecution is relying only on the statement of the injured coupled with the circumstance that the injured had disclosed the name of the accused to the witnesses at the earliest opportunity. In that context, the least to be said is that if the injured himself is not to be believed, then the fact of his disclosure to the witnesses will also have to be discredited to equal extent.
9. Regard having been had to all the circumstances, I am of the view that the interim bail granted to the accused Muhammad Yaqub should be confirmed. I confirm the interim bail granted to the accused, and dismiss the Application for cancellation of bail.