1. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant who is involved in a case registered with Police Station Market, Hyderabad under section 302/147/148/149, P.P.C Briefly the facts as given in the F.I.R. Are that on the date of incident the complaintant along with police party was on patrol duty in a police van and' when they reached Sakhi Peer Road at about 18-25 hours they were joined by Head Constable Bangal Khan and Constable Anwar. At that time the police party heard firing and rushed towards the said direction where they found six armed persons firing at one bike rider who was lying on the ground. The culprits seeing the police party ran away along with their weapons in a nearby street. The culprits were identified by the Police personnel Head Constable Khan Muhammad, Head Constable Bangal Khan, Head Constable Muhammad Juman and Constable Muhammad Ayoob, who gave their names including the names of the present applicant. The police party then approached the person lying on the ground who was identified to be C.I.A. LNK Muhammad Ismail son of Khan Mohammed. He had sustained bullet injuries and was unconscious and was bleeding and was taken to the Liaquat Medical Hospital, Hyderabad where he succumbed to his injuries. The F.I.R. Was accordingly lodged and the culprits were arrested. The bail application on behalf of the present applicant was moved before the lower Court, which was rejected and, therefore, this bail application.
2. I have heard Mr. Faiz Muhammad Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Abdul Latif Memon, Assistant Advocate-General for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been involved falsely and on account of enmity. He has raised a number of pleas while Mr. Abdul Latif Memon, learned Assistant Advocate--General Sindh has opposed this bail application.
4. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the police had mentioned the names of the accused persons in the F.I.R. But they have not disclosed the source of identification.
5. According to the learned counsel there was enmity between the parties and, therefore, the present applicant has been implicated. He has placed reliance on the case of Mohammed Nadir v. State (1991 PCr.U 4). 1 have gone through this decision. In this case bail was granted for the reasons that the complainant in the F.I.R. Had not stated if he knew the accused prior to incident intimately and no identification test was held and also that the prosecution version was belied by medical evidence. In my humble view this case would not be applicable as the facts of the present case are different. In the present case the learned counsel himself has advanced a plea that there was enmity between the parties which itself goes to show that parties knew each other. Moreover, the learned Assistant Advocate-General has submitted that the present applicant and co--accused are involved in a number of other cases of the same police station and as such the police personnel had had the occasion to have been these accused earlier and could have identified them as the incident had taken place at about sunset time when there was sufficient daylight on which they could be identified. The other case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is that of Waqar Yousuf v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 764). In this case the principle laid down was that the accused should have been put to identification test as he was not known to the prosecution witnesses which is not the case here. The learned counsel has then placed reliance on the case of Raza Muhamamd Sial v. State 1988 SCM R 1223. This case would not be applicable as it was case under section 409/420, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and matter under consideration was regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail. The learned counsel has then taken the plea that the witnesses cited in the case are police officials; and that incident is said to have taken place at a public road where private witnesses could have been available. He has placed reliance on the case of Ghularn Rasool and others v. State 1989 SCMR 557. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made an observation while hearing criminal appeals. With all respect it may be observed that in an appeal the Court can shift the evidence but in case of bail application it is not open for the Court to go into details of the evidence nor the evidence can be sifted at this stage. All that is to be seen in a bail application. Is that whether there are sufficient reasons to connect the accused with the commission of -the alleged offence. The above-- cited case will also not be of any help to the applicant. The learned counsel has then submitted that no direct role has been attributed to the present applicant; and that there amedical evidence. He has placed reliance on a number of cases in support of his above, contention, and has argued that for these reasons this is a case which calls for further enquiry.
6. I have perused the police papers and the post-mortem report of the deceased which shows that deceased had suffered as many as four injuries in the region of chest, of which two are wounds of entry while the other two are wounds of exit. The F.I.R. Also shows that the police party had seen the accused party firing at the deceased. It is not stated if all the bullets fired by the accused party had hit the deceased. There is every chance that same may have missed the target. The mashirnama of place of occurrence shows that police had recovered 12 empty shells from there of which seven empty shells pertained to revolver of 30 bore while 5 shells were from the revolver of .32 bore. This fact further implicates the present applicant from whom revolver of .30 bore was recovered. In these circumstances I am of the view that prima facie there is no conflict between the oral or medical evidence. Even if it be so then also that point can be thrashed at the time of evidence as held in the case of Sanata and another v. The State (1982 SCM R 208).
7. Lastly the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. Has been lodged with a delay of two hours whereas the distance of the place of occurrence is only four furlongs from the police station. I do not find any force in the above submission of the learned counsel as the said delay has been explained in the F.I.R. Wherein it is stated that the police had taken the deceased from the place of occurrence at the time when he was unconscious and was brought to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries and thereafter the police party came to lodge the F.I.R.
8. It is obvious that the police party could not have left the deceased in such condition at the place of occurrence and rushed to lodge the F.I.R. First. Finally the learned counsel for, the applicant -has submitted that the name of the father of the applicant is shown as Chajoo in the F.I.R. While the present applicant is son of Niaz Muhammad and, therefore, a wrong person has been arrested by Police. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has submitted that the father's name of the present applicant is Chajoo alias Niaz Muhammad as stated by the P.Ws. In their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.
9. From the above discussion it can safely be observed that the name of the present applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R. And the role of firing at the deceased is attributed to him. The deceased had suffered firearm injuries. The weapon has been recovered from the accused and the nature of weapon corresponds with the empty shells recovered by the police from the place of Wardat. The P.Ws. Have also implicated the applicant. From the above discussion I am of the view that there is sufficient material on the record to connect the present applicant with the commission of the offence. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.
10. N.H.Q./S-847/K