IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-680 of 2018

Applicants             :                1). Amir Hamzo s/o Muhammad Ibrahim

2). Bashir Ahmed s/o Bilawal Panhwar

Through Mr.Ashiq Ali Jatoi,   Advocate

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

                                                Complainant Ghulam Nabi 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, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Riaz Hussain by causing fire shot injuries and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2.                The applicants on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Qamber, 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 to satisfy their enmity with them, the role attributed to the applicants in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing, as such the participation of the applicants in commission of the incident on point of vicarious liability according to him is calling for further enquiry and co-accused Muhammad Ibrahim has already been admitted to bail. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicants on bail pending trial. In support of his contentions he relied upon cases of Muhammad Irfan vs. The state and others (2014 SCMR-1347), 2). Syed Amanullah Shah vs. the State and another (PLD 1996 SC-241), 3). Ganhwar Bhutto Vs. The State (2011 MLD-210), 4). Gadal vs. the State (2010 PCr.LJ-280), 5). Raja Abdul Manaf vs. the State (1986 PCr.LJ-465) and 6). Gul vs. the State ( 2018 YLR Note-226).

4.                Learned A.P.G for the State who is assisted by the complainant has sought for dismissal of the instant bail application by contending that the applicants have actively participated in commission of the incident.

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

6.                The specific role of committing death of deceased by causing him fire shot injuries is attributed to co-accused Bakhshan. The role attributed to the applicants in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing. Whether the applicants actually participated in commission of the incident with vicarious liability? It requires determination at trial. Co-accused Muhammad Ibrahim has already been admitted to bail by this Court. The parties are already disputed. In that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail on point of further enquiry.

7.                In view of facts and reasons discussed above and while relying upon the case law referred by learned counsel for the applicants, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

8.                The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                            J U D G E