IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Before :Mr. Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui
Criminal
Bail Application No. 1147 of 2016
Raheem Bux
.............
...
..Applicant
Versus
The State
.
..
.Respondent
Date
of Hearing &Order : 06.02.2017
Mr. Muhammad Hassan Jakhro, advocate for the applicant
Mr. Jamil Ahmed Shah, advocate for the complainant
Ms. Rahat Ehsan, DPG for State
O R D E R
.-.-.-.-.-.
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI,
J:This order will dispose of instant
criminal bail application moved by the applicant abovenamed who is involved in
Crime No.88/2016 under Section 302/392/397 PPC of PS Thatta.
2.
Allegation against the
applicant is that he along-with his associates took part in the murder of
deceased.
3.
The facts as per FIR are
that the complainant party was returning after attending marriage ceremony on a
motorcycle as pillionriders. In the way to their home, the applicant along with
co-accused namely Gulab and NabiBux, armed with deadly weapon, intercepted the
complainant party. They challenged the complainant party for dire consequences
and then accused Gulab made straight fire with pistol which hit brother of
complainant namely Dodo and all of them fell down on ground. Other co-accused
also fired with their respective weapons and then accused persons after robbing
their motorcycle escaped from the place of incident.
4.
Learned counsel for the
applicant made submissions at length. Gist of his argument is that the
applicant was not present at the place of incident as such he was shown in
column No.2 of final report. Alleged story is false as the applicant is
involved due to enmity. Deceased had abducted daughter of accused Gulab and
such FIR was also lodged. Deceased was also involved in criminal cases as such
he was a hardened criminal and had enmity with so many persons. He placed
reliance on 2013 YLR 1096.
5.
Learned counsel for the
complainant opposed the instant bail plea. He argued that the applicant is
nominated in FIR with specific role. It is not mentioned anywhere in FIR about
enmity with accused persons. Involvement of a person in criminal cases is not a
licence to accused persons to take law in their hands. Learned DPG for the
state also opposed instant bail application by adopting submissions made by
learned counsel for the complainant. In addition, she submitted that injured accused
who received cross injury upon his shoulder had recorded his statementin which
he stated that the present applicant is one of the culprits.
6.
After hearing the
submissions at bar, I have also gone through the record placed before me.I have
scanned the record in the light of arguments advanced by learned counsel and
came to following conclusion.
a) The
applicant is well nominated in the FIR with ocular account by the complainant.
The eye-witnesses of the incident also named him as one of the culprit in their
statements.
b) Relationship
between the complainant, deceased and witness of ocular account is not
sufficient to say that they have falsely involved accused persons in instant
case, especially when FIR was lodged on the same day without any delay.
c) In
the present case, the plea of alibi based on affidavits needs evidence and the
same cannot be considered at bail stage as it requires evidence.
d) As
per FIR, the applicant is shown armed with weapon and there is specific
allegation of firing as for which ocular account is also available, as such he
is one who facilitate the main culprits to achieve the target.
e) The
applicant associated with the arrested accused and he was not only shown
available at the scene of occurrence but also took part in firing, hence common
intention is there. Common intention is not only transpires from the body of
FIR but it is also reflecting from statement of witnesses recorded during
investigation.
f) Although
allegation of enmity between complainant party and accused persons is not
mentioned in FIR but evenif it is considered that there is animosity between
the parties then it is settled law that enmity is a double edged weapon which
cuts both side.
g) It
is also alleged that deceased was involved in other cases but this argument
will also not improve the applicants case for pre-arrest bail when as
conditions specified for the relief under Section 498 Cr.P.C. are not available.
7.
In view of the above, the
applicant is not entitled for extraordinary relief under Section 498 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the order dated 10.08.2016 is recalled.
JUDGE