IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-133 of 2018

Applicant                   :                       Ali Hyder son of Allah Dino Chabro

Through Mr.Himath Ali Gadehi, Advocate

Complainant             :                        Mukhtiar Ali Bughio in person

State                          :                        Through Mr. Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G                                                             

Date of hearing          :                       16.07.2018   

Date of order             :                       16.07.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH. J- It is alleged that the present applicant/accused with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object by using criminal force not only committed death of Allah Dino but caused hatchet injuries to PW Saddam Hussain with intention to commit his murder and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case registered.

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 falsely in order to satisfy with him their enmity over landed property, the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of instigation and/or making aerial firing. By contending so, he sought for release of applicant on bail as according to him, his case is calling for further enquiry.  In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Abdul Rehman vs. Javed and others (2002 SCMR-1415).

4.                     Complainant sought for dismissal of the bail of applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident by making aerial firing.  

5.                     Learned A.P.G has also opposed to grant of bail by contending that the provision of Section 34 PPC are attracted.

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

7.                     The name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR but there could be made no denial to the fact that role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of instigation and/or making aerial firing. The parties are already disputed over landed property, in that situation, the participation of applicant in commission of the incident obviously is calling for further enquiry.

8.                    In view of above while relying upon case law which is referred by the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

9.                     The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                             J U D G E