IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-294 of 2018

Applicant               :                Mujahid son of Dil Murad Kalhoro, Through Mr.Faiz Muhammad Larik, Advocate

The State   :                            Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, 

A.P.G and complainant in person.

Date of hearing   :                  10.08.2018          

Date of order      :                  10.08.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the present applicant with rest of the culprits, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Ali Raza by causing him fire shot injuries, for that the present case was 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 the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party; there is delay of about one day in lodging of the FIR, the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent that he caught hold of the deceased and   co-accused Hubdar Ali has already been admitted to bail. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant as according to him his case is calling for further enquiry.

4.                Learned A.P.G who is supported by the complainant has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of incident by holding the deceased at the time of his death.

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

6.                The specific role of committing death of the deceased by causing him fire shot injuries is attributed to co-accused Shakeel. The role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent that he called the deceased through cell phone. No CDR is obtained to prove such allegation. The applicant it is said caught hold of the deceased at the time when he was fired and killed by      co-accused Shakeel Ahmed, if such allegation against the applicant is examined in light of delay of one day in lodgment of the FIR of the present case then it makes the case of the applicant to be that of further enquiry.

7.                In case of Shahid vs. the State (1994 SCMR-393), it is held by the Hon’ble Court that;

“Bail, grant of---Accused was attributed the role of getting hold of deceased when his co-accused was inflicting dagger blows on him--- Another accused who had allegedly given kicks and fists blows to the deceased had been extended the concession of bail---Contentions that the accused on the principle of consistency was also entitled to bail and that it was yet to be determined whether the accused had facilitated the commission of the offence to attract S.34, P.P.C. making out a case for further enquiry, had substance---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and the same was allowed in circumstances and the accused was released on bail accordingly”.    

8.                In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- 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

-