IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-315 of 2018

Applicant                :                        Bakhshal s/o Muhammad Pannah Chandio,

Through Mr.Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate

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

Date of hearing      :                       27.07.2018

Date of order          :                       27.07.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the present applicant with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Abdul Latif by causing him fire shot injures and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2.                    On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned trial Court mainly for the reason that he has remained fugitive from law, 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 account of its dispute with him over the landed property; no effective role in commission of the incident is attributed to the applicant; co-accused Zahid Ali with similar role has already been admitted to pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge Qamber-Shahdadkot @ Qamber. By contending so, he sought for release of applicant on bail, as according to him his case is calling for further enquiry.

4.                    Complainant could not be served with the notice as he according to SHO P.S Hamal is absconding in good number of cases. None indeed could be kept in custody for indefinite period for want of service of notice upon the complainant, who is said to be fugitive from law.

5.                    Learned A.P.G has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has participated in the commission of the incident.

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

7.                    The specific role of committing death of deceased Abdul Latif by causing him fire shot injuries is attributed to co-accused Abdul Ghaffar and Tariq. The role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent that he made aerial firing during course of incident. Whether the applicant actually participated in commission of the incident by making aerial firing which constitutes an act of vicarious liability on his part? It requires determination at trial. Co-accused Zahid Ali with utmost similar role has already been admitted to pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge Qamber-Shahdadkot @ Qamber. In that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he is entitled to grant of bail, as his case is also calling for further enquiry.   

8.                    The right which is made available by law could not be withheld on the basis of alone. In case of Mitho Pitafi and others Ors vs. the State (2009 SCMR-299), it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that the bail could be granted if accused had good case for bail on merit and mere his absconsion would not come in the way while granting him bail.

9.                    In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

10.                  The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                             J U D G E

-