ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
AT KARACHI
Cr.
B. A. No.1534 of 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF
JUDGE(S)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
For
orders on M.A. No.9274/2015 (U/A)
2)
For
order on M.A. No.9275/2015 (Ext. of protective bail)
-------------------
26.11.2015
Mr. Zakir Leghari, advocate a/w applicant/accused
--------------------------------------------
1) Granted.
2) This is an
application for extension of the protective bail moved on behalf of applicant/accused
Sikandar Ali son of Muhammad Pinyal by caste Junejo in Crime No.141/2015, registered
at P.S. Ranipur, District Khairpur,
under sections 302, 148, 149, 109, 404, 324, PPC read
with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
It is inter
alia contended that applicant/accused could not surrender before the trial
Court after grant of protective bail as he has serious threat of life at the
hands of his enemies in District Khairpur. It appears
that this Court vide order dated 19.11.2015 granted
protective bail to the applicant/accused as under:
“Without touching the merits of the
case, protective bail for a period of eight
days from today is granted to applicant/accused Sikandar Ali Junejo son of Muhammad Pinyal Junejo, subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum
of Rs.500,000/- and P.R. bond in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Applicant/accused is directed to
surrender before the trial Court in the aforesaid crime. He is also directed to
co-operate with the investigating agency. This order shall cease to have its
effect after expiry of eight days
from today or whenever the applicant/accused surrenders before the trial Court
which one occurs earlier.”
Applicant/accused
was directed at the time of grant of protective bail to surrender before the
trial Court and join the investigation in the aforesaid period. Neither the
applicant/accused surrendered before the trial Court
nor joined the investigation. From the perusal of the F.I.R.
it appears that this is the case of 11 murders. The conduct/attitude of the applicant/accused
disentitles him from extension of protective bail. Reliance is placed upon the
case of Muhammad Sadiq and others versus The State
and another, reported in 2015 SCMR 1394.
In view of
above, such extraordinary concession of protective bail cannot be extended to
applicant/accused. No sufficient reason has been given for extension of protective
bail. Therefore, this application, having no merits, is dismissed.
J U D G E
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PA