IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-258 of 2018

Applicants            :                 1). Syed Shakeel Shah

2). Syed Jameel Shah,

                                                      both sons of Syed Suhnal Shah         

Through Mr.Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate

Complainant       :                  Syed Zameer Hussain Shah, through

Mr. Imtiaz Ali Mugheri,     Advocate

State                              :                  Through Mr.Ali Anwar Kandhro,  A.P.G.

Date of hearing   :                  20.12.2018          

Date of order      :                  20.12.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits, in prosecution of their common object, committed    Qatl-e-Amd of Mst.Rasheeda Khatoon by causing her spade, sickle, bat and dagger blows, for that the present case was registered.

2.                The applicants on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 497 Cr.PC.

3.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party only for the reason that they are relatives of principle accused Ghulam Abbas Shah who is husband of the deceased, there is delay of about one day in lodgment of the FIR, there is conflict between the medical and ocular evidence, the availability of the complainant and his witnesses at the place of incident is unnatural and they being related inter-se could not be believed. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicants on bail on point of further enquiry.

4.                Learned A.P.G and leaned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in commission of the incident by causing bat and sickle injuries to the deceased and co-accused Misri Shah with utmost similar role has already been refused post-arrest bail by this Court. By contending so, they sought for dismissal of the instant bail application.

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

6.                The names of the applicants are appearing in FIR with specific allegation that they with rest of the culprits, in prosecution of their common object, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Mst.Rasheeda Khatoon by causing her spade, sickle, bat and dagger injuries. The specific role of causing injuries to the said deceased with bat and dagger are attributed to the applicants. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. It is true that there is delay of about one day in lodgment of the FIR but there could be made no denial to the fact that it is explained in FIR itself. The delay in lodgment of the FIR even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. There may or may not be a conflict between medical and ocular evidence but the same too could not be resolved by this Court for the reason that the deeper appreciation of the facts and circumstances is not permissible at bail stage. The complainant and his witnesses may be related inter-se but their relationship is not enough to disbelieve them at this stage and they are appearing to be natural witnesses to the incident.                 Co-accused Misri Shah with utmost similar role has already been refused post-arrest bail by this Court; such fact could not be lost sight of. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are guilty of the offence with which they are charged.

7.                Consequent upon above discussion, the instant bail application is dismissed. 

                                                                            J U D G E