IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-603 of 2018

Applicants              :                        1). Javed son of Sikandar Ali Khakhrani

2). Mashooque son of Ameen Khakhrani
Through Mr. Saleem Raza Jakhar,       Advocate

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

                                                            Complainant Ramzan in person

Date of hearing      :                       07.01.2019             

Date of order          :                       07.01.2019                         

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, not only committed Qatl-e-Amd of Sajjad Ali by causing him fire shot injuries but also caused fire shot injuries to complainant Ramzan and PWs Punhal and Aijaz, with intention to commit their murder and then went away by making fires in air to create harassment, for that they have been booked and challaned in the present case.

2.                    The applicants on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr.PC.

3.                    It would not be out of place to mention that the instant bail application in first instance was heard by Mr.Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio. Before its legal disposal, same on 14.12.2018 was ordered to be placed before the undersigned with the following observation;

“Before signing the above order and on perusal of the case file, it transpired that co-accused Ameen Khakhrani and Ahmed Ali Khakhrani were granted post arrest bail vide orders dated 31.08.2018 and 09.11.2018 respectively, by my learned brother Mr.Justice Irshad Ali Shah, J, who is presently holding sitting in this Circuit Court at Larkana, therefore, office is directed to place this matter before the same Bench in compliance of judgment dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Honourable Apex Court in Crl.Revision Petition No.07-L of 2013 Re. Nazeer Ahmed Vs. The State”.    

4.                    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 to settle their dispute with them over old enmity, co-accused Ahmed Ali and Ameen have already been admitted to bail by this Court, the applicants are in custody since eight months and the complainant and PWs are related inter-se. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicants on bail on point of consistency and further enquiry.

5.                    Learned A.P.G for the State who is assisted by the complainant has opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in commission of the incident by causing death of the deceased and injuries to complainant and their role is distinguishable to that of co-accused Ahmed Ali and Ameen.

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

7.                    The names of the applicants are appearing in FIR with specific allegation of causing fire shot injuries to deceased Sajjad Ali and complainant Ramzan with intention to commit his murder too. 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 only to settle their dispute with them. It is true that co-accused Ahmed Ali and Ameen have already been admitted to bail by this Court but there could be made no denial to the fact that the role attributed to them in commission of the incident was only to the extent of instigation and/or making of aerial firing. In that situation, it could be concluded safely that the role of applicants in commission of the incident is distinguishable to that of co-accused Ahmed Ali and Ameen. The custody of eight months is not enough to admit the applicants to bail in case like present one by making a conclusion that it is case of hardship. The complainant and PWs may be related inter-se but their relationship is not enough to disbelieve them at this stage. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are guilty of the offence with which they have been charged.

8.                    Consequent upon above discussion, it is concluded that the applicants are not found entitled to be released on bail. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed accordingly.

                                                         J U D G E

-