IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-106 of 2018

Applicant:                                          Munir son of Juma Khan Jatoi

Through Mrs.Akhtiar Begum, Advocate

Respondent:                                      The State Through Mr. Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi                                                      A.P.G & Mr.Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate

for Legal Heirs of deceased.  

Date of hearing          :                       06.07.2018               

Date of order             :                       06.07.2018   

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH. J- It is alleged that the present applicant/accused with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention committed        Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Panjal by causing him fire shot injuries, for he was booked and challaned in the present case.

2.                     On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned trial Court, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr.PC.

3.                     It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party on the basis of extra judicial confession of Mst.Farzana, co-accused Mst.Farzana has already been admitted to bail and there is no independent witness to the incident. By contending so, she sought for release of applicant on bail on point of further enquiry.

4.                     Learned counsel for legal heirs of the deceased has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he is actively involved in the commission of the incident and on arrest from him has been secured the crime weapon for that he has already been convicted by the Court of competent jurisdiction.

5.                     Learned A.P.G has supported the order of learned trial Court.

6.                     I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

7.                     The name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that he with rest of the culprits being armed with deadly weapons was found over the deceased when he was struggling for his life after sustaining fire shot injuries. On enquiry, made by the complainant Bakhshan, it was told to him by co-accused Mst.Farzana wife of deceased Muhammad Panjal that accused Muneer has committed Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Panjal by causing him fire shot injuries as he was having illicit relations with him. On arrest from the applicant was secured the crime weapon and in that case the present applicant has already been convicted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The recovery of crime weapon from the applicant prima facie connects him with commission of the incident. In that situation, it would be pre-mature to say that the applicant has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party only on the basis of extra judicial confession of co-accused Mst.Farzana. It is true that co-accused Mst.Farzana has already been admitted to bail but there could be made no denial to the fact that the case of the applicant is distinguishable to that of co-accused Mst.Farzana, as it was he who allegedly has committed Qatl-e-Amd of deceased Muhammad Panjal by causing him fire shot injuries. The FIR has been lodged by the complainant within shortest possible time with remote chance of false implication of the applicant. It is true that there is no independent witness to the incident but there could be made no denial to the fact that the complainant and his witnesses being inmates of the house are natural witnesses to the incident. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence, for which he is charged.

8.                    In view of facts and reasons discussed above, it could be concluded safely that no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently, the instant application is dismissed.

                             J U D G E