ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S-  551 of 2017.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

23.04.2018.

1.       For orders on office objections.

2.       For hearing of bail application.

          Mr. Khadim Hussain Khoso, Advocate for applicant.

          Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijrani, Advocate for complainant.

          Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.

~~~~~~~

Amjad Ali Sahito, J:    Trough this application, applicant Gul son of Jan Muhammad Mazari seeks his admission to post-arrest bail in Crime No.92 of 2017, registered at Police Station Kashmore, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 114 and  34 P.P.C.

2.       The allegation against present applicant as per F.I.R lodged by complainant Qamaruddin on 07.06.2017, is that he instigated co-accused for murdering Mst. Meeran and on his instigation co-accused Riaz caused lathi blows to Mst. Meeran, which resulted into her death.

3.       Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, no motive is  attributed to the applicant; that no any active role of  causing any injury etc. is assigned to the applicant except instigation. Per learned counsel, in these circumstances, the question of sharing common intention vicarious liability of present applicant with co-accused would be determined at the time of trial. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied upon case of Niaz Ali Shah v. The State and another (2015 P.Cr.L.J 766 Lahore), Muhammad Tanveer v. The State through Anees-ul-Afreen (2014 P.Cr.L.J 1096 Islamabad) Muhammad Naveed v. The State (2014 P.Cr.L.J 1548 (Sindh), Abdul Rehman v. Javed and 2 others (2002 SCMR 1415) and Qurban Ali v. The State and others (2017 SCMR279). 

4.       Conversely, counsel for the complainant opposed grant of bail in favor of the applicant on the ground that applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R with his name and parentage duly armed with T.T pistol with role of instigation and facilitating the principal accused, who committed murder of an innocent lady, as such he is vicariously liable for the murder of deceased.

5.       Learned A.P.G. appearing for the State also opposed grant of bail to the applicant but could not controvert the above submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.  

6.       No doubt, the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R, but no specific role of causing any injury to deceased is assigned to him, though he was allegedly armed with T.T pistol, but he did not use the same in the commission of alleged offence. The applicant has acted as instigator only and the motive is also not attributed to him.  It was co-accused Riaz who caused lathi blows to Mst. Meeran, resulting into her death.

7.       In case of Qurban Ali (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has granted bail to accused, who had not been attributed any overt act during the occurrence except the role of raising “lalkara” and further held that in such circumstances trial Court had to determine, after recording pro and contra evidence, whether the applicant was vicariously liable for the acts of his co-accused and that case was one of further enquiry.

8.       The facts of cases, cited by the learned counsel for applicant i.e. Niaz Ali Shah v. The State and another (2015 P.Cr.L.J 766 Lahore), Muhammad Tanveer v. The State through Anees-ul-Afreen (2014 P.Cr.L.J 1096 Islamabad), Muhammad Naveed v. The State (2014 P.Cr.L.J 1548 (Sindh), and case of Abdul Rehman v. Javed and 2 others (2002 SCMR 1415), are very much applicable to the instant case. Perusal of above citations shows that in similar circumstances, the accused persons were extended concession of bail.

9.       A tentative assessment of all the above factors and the material available on record makes the case of the applicant one of further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed. The applicant is admitted to bail upon his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Three hundred thousand rupees) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

10.     Needless, to mention that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice case of either party at trial.

                                                                JUDGE

Ansari/*