' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment dated 25-8- 2001, passed by the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur, in Criminal Miscellaneous A.No,S-93 of 2001.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 6-12-2000 complainant Qurban Ali lodged F.I.R.
No,114 with Police Station Pirjo Goth, alleging therein that Jam Muhammad is his brother-in-law, who lives with him in the same village; Nazir Ahmed son of Lal Bux Bhutto had solemnized Court marriage with Mst. Salma daughter of Muhammad Bachal Bhutto, on which Muhammad Bachal Bhutto and others were annoyed with Jan Muhammad, because he had provided help to them. On the day of occurrence, early in the morning, the complainant was standing in land for rotation of water, Jan Muhammad had to go on his duty to Khairpur in his Car No,J-1821/Karachi, and Saindad, Abdul Hafeez, Ali Dino and Nazir Ahmed, were also ready to go with him to Khairpur in the same car.
As the complainant was standing in the land he saw that the car of Jan Muhammad came from house, when it moved ahead of village Hamid Bhutto on the link road from Bhatyoon to Pirjo Goth, at about 8-00 a.m. Accused Mumtaz armed with hatchet, Aijaz With TT Pistol, Atta Muhammad with single-barrel gun, Murid with Lathi, Mashooq with hatchet, Suleman with Lathi, Sarwar with hatchet, Raja with Lathi, and Arbab alias Kandero with double-barrel gun came from northern side of protective Bund in front of car and the persons armed with weapons started firing at the car. Jan Muhammad stopped the car and got down along with others. Abdul Hafeez and accused Arbab grappled with each other, on which a fire from the gun of Arbab hit on his chest and he fell down.
Accused Mumtaz and Mashooq also gave hatchet blows on the head of Jan Muhammad who fell down. Accused Aijaz Ahmed from his T.T pistol fired at Jan Muhammad. The complainant raised cries, on which Mst. Soni, Mst. Karimat, Mst. Rabil, and Mst. Noor Jahan came there and tried to intervene, to whom accused also gave hatchet and Lathi blows, and all men and women of complainant side fell down, thereafter, accused went towards their houses raising slogans. Jan Muhammad and Arbab succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. After due investigation of the case, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur and thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, for adjudication. Accused-petitioners moved an application for grant of bail, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 16-3-2001.
4. Against the aforesaid order, the complainant filed a criminal miscellaneous application for cancellation of bail of the petitioners, which was allowed by the learned High Court vide order dated 25-8-2001 Hence, this petition.
5. According to the office objection this petition is barred by 145 days. The grounds mentioned in the application for delay are that the petitioners were in jail and their counsel Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi was in his home town, therefore, power of attorney of Advocate-on-Record could not be signed in time from jail; that the petitioners' right and interest are involved in the matter, and so in the interest of justice and equity the delay may be condoned.
6. We have pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioners to cross the hurdle of delay in filing the application, but he reiterated the same grounds as mentioned above . Since caveat has been filed on behalf of the complainant and learned Additional Advocate-General is also present, we proceeded to hear the petition on merits.
7. Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the case of the petitioners is of further inquiry; that the complainant party attacked the accused side and murdered Arbab, but due to influence and source, the case was not registered against the complainant party; and that the case of the petitioners is that of further enquiry, therefore, bail may be granted to them.
8. Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Additional Advocate-General pointed out that the prosecution has attributed specific role to the petitioners, which is supported by the medical evidence as well as the circumstantial evidence. The incident had taken place in day time and the case was challaned against the petitioners after thorough investigation. The case filed by the petitioners' side was disposed of as "B" Class, which rather shows that the petitioners had put up a false defence which was rightly rejected by the Investigating Agency.
9. Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned counsel for the complainant on the point of limitation submitted that the High Court announced the order on 13-8-2001 and the copy of the order was ready and the same was sent to the trial Court on 14-9-2001. The application for getting certified copy of the order was filed in the Court on 26-9-2001. The petition was prepared by the Advocate-on-Record on 17-1- 2002 after about 2 months' delay, whereas the present petition was filed in Court on 16-2-2002. The delay whatsoever is not properly explained. On merits, he pointed out that the deceased sustained 8 injuries, whereas P.W. Hafeez sustained 8 injuries, P.W. Suleman sustained 3 injuries, Nazir Ahmed sustained 2 injuries, Mst. Noor Jahan sustained 4 injuries, Mst. Sonia sustained 4 injuries, Mst.
Karimat sustained one injury and Mst. Rabul sustained 4 injuries.
10. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on record carefully. The incident is of daytime. The, cross-case lodged by the accused-party against the complainant side was disposed of as "B" Class. Be that as it may, we refrain from to dilate upon this aspect, which may prejudice the case of either party before the trial Court, where evidence is yet to be recorded. However, prima facie, specific role of causing injuries to the deceased and P.Ws. As mentioned hereinabove, is attributed to each of the petitioner, which is fully supported by the ocular account furnished by the P.Ws. Before the prosecution, and it also gets corroboration form the medical evidence.
11. We have also perused the impugned judgment of the High Court; which is based on valid and sound reasons and is in consonance with law laid down by this Court. We do not find misreading or non-reading of material available or any misconstruction of law. The impugned judgment is not open to exception. This Court time and again has held that even a single day's delay is to be explained with sound and cogent reasons, whereas in this case the delay of 145 days, in our considered view, has not been explained with valid reasons. Moreover, question of public importance is not involved in this case.
12. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is dismissed on merits as well as on the point of limitation and leave to appeal declined.