ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S – 779 of 2018

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of bail application

04.3.2019

Mr. Ali Ahmed Khan Advocate for the Applicants

Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

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 fired and injured PW Imdad Ali with intention to commit his murder but committed murder of Farhan Ali by causing him fire shot injuries, for that the present case was registered.

2. On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge Mirpur Mathelo, the applicants now have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 497 Cr.P.C.

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; there is delay of about one day in lodgment of FIR, co‑accused have already been admitted to bail, complainant Dhani Bux, PW Imdad Ali and PW Qaiser by filing their affidavits have already recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicants. By contending so, he sought for grant of bail to the applicants on point of further inquiry.

4. Learned DPG for the State has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicants.

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

6. There is delay of about one day in lodgment of FIR; same as such could not be lost sight of. There is general allegation of the incident and more so complainant Dhani Bux, PWs Imdad Ali and Qaisar by filing their affidavits before learned trial Court have already recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicants by stating therein that they in private faisla have been found to be innocent, learned trial Court as such ought not to have refused bail to the applicants under the pretext that complainant party has taken summersault. In these circumstances, the applicants are found entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry.

7. In case of Muhammad Najeeb vs. State (2009 SCMR-448), it has been held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that;

“complainant initially had nominated the accused in the FIR but later-on through an affidavit he has expressed his satisfaction with regard to innocence of the accused, the case of the accused was of further enquiry”.

8. In view of above, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two lac) each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

Judge

ARBROHI