IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-577 of 2017

Applicant               :                Asif son of Ghulam Qadir Buriro

Through Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro,      Advocate

Complainant       :                  Ghulam Asghar Golo through

Mr.Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate

State                              :                  Through Mr.Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.

Date of hearing   :                  10.12.2018          

Date of order      :                  10.12.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by using criminal force, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Abdul Jabbar, by causing him fire shot injuries 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 Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, 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, the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of aerial firing, co-accused Ghulam Qadir with role of instigation has already been admitted to bail by this Court. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail as according to him his case is calling for further enquiry.

4.                Learned A.P.G and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to applicant by contending that on arrest from him has been secured incriminating gun.

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

6.                The specific role of committing death of deceased Abdul Jabbar by causing him fire shot injuries is attributed to co-accused Dildar and Dilshad. Co-accused Ghulam Qadir has already been admitted to bail by this Court. The role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing. Whether the applicant actually participated in commission of the incident to make aerial firing? It requires determination at trial. In that situation, it would be unjustified to decline the concession of bail to the applicant on the basis of recovery alone. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail as his case is calling for further enquiry.

7.                In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

8.                The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                            J U D G E