ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. B.A. No.334 of 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF JUDGE(S)
FOR HEARING OF BAIL APPLICATION
03.4.2018
Mr. Jamshaid Ahmed, advocate for applicant
None present for complainant
Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, DPG
-------------------------
ORDER
Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J. Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his release on bail from the trial Court in Crime No.161/2008 registered under Section 302/34 PPC at PS Sir Syed. Now the applicant Rashid @ Kala @ Dhobi son of Muhammad Saeed is seeking his release on bail through instant bail application.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Syed Nadeem Ahmed son of Maqsood Ahmed, resident of House No.B-263, Sector 11/E, New Fatima Jinnah Colony, Karachi lodged the above FIR on 29.5.2008, alleging therein that he was residing at above mentioned address and doing the work of Lath Machine. On the day of incident, he was sleeping, when at night 0005 hours, heard the voice of firing outside the house, he came out and saw that at the door of his house at road, the people were gathered and saw that his brother Waseem Ahmed son of Maqsood Ahmed was sustained injuries and lying on road, it came to know that two motorcycle riders, names & residents not known came and with fire arms made firing upon his brother and injured his brother, brought him in private vehicle to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, where the doctor certified that he had expired.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for applicant that the case against applicant is false and has been registered due to enmity; that the incident took place on 29.5.2008 and it has been reported by the brother of deceased namely Syed Nadeem Ahmed on the same day; that it is a case of unwitnessed incident; that the applicant/ accused has been arrested on 27.10.2016 in other cases; that after his arrest no identification parade has been held nor the statement of applicant/ accused has been recorded under Section 164 CrPC; that accused is behind the bar for the last 1½ years without any substantial progress in the trial. Therefore, under these circumstances, learned counsel for applicant has prayed for bail in favour of the applicant.
4. Learned DPG has opposed this bail application on the ground that the case is at initial stage and it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether the applicant has committed the offence or not.
5. I have given my anxious thoughts to the contentions raised at the bar as well as the case papers so made available before me.
6. It appears from the record that incident took place on 29.5.2008. It also appears from the perusal of FIR that the name of the applicant is not appearing in FIR. It also appears that this is a case of unwitnessed incident. From the perusal of record, it also appears that the accused was arrested on 27.10.2016 and since then he is behind the bar without any substantial progress in the trial. It is pertinent to mention here that after the arrest of the applicant, no any statement of accused has been recorded before any magistrate under Section 164 CrPC nor accused was put into identification test before any magistrate. During the course of arguments, I have specifically asked the question from learned counsel for applicant whether there is any convincing evidence is available on record against the applicant connecting him in the commission of offence. He did not reply satisfactorily. It is stated by learned counsel for applicant that at present applicant/ accused is in jail in this case and no substantial progress is made in this case by trial Court.
7. Under these circumstances, what I have observed above, the applicant has made out a prima-facie case for grant of bail. I, accordingly admitted the accused on bail after his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. Needless to mention here that the observation, if any, made in this order is tentative in nature and shall not effect the merits of the case.
Judge
asim/pa