ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail. Appln. No.S- 13 of 2019
Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge
For hearing
of bail application
11.03.2019
Mr. Ubedullah
Ghoto Advocate for the Applicant
Mr.
Ajeebullah Junejo Advocate
for the complainant
Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi, DPG for
the State
>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<
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, committed Qatl-e-amd of Piyaro, Rehmatullah and Hoath, after
causing them fire shot injuries in order to satisfy their enmity with them, for
that the present case was registered.
2. The
applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge Ghotki, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant
bail application under Section 497 Cr.P.C.
3. It is contended by learned
counsel for the applicant that applicant being innocent has been involved in
this case falsely by the complainant party, in order to satisfy their enmity
with him and on further investigation no effective role in commission of
incident has been attributed to him. By contending so, he sought for release of
the applicant on point of further inquiry. In support of his contention, he has
relied upon cases of Ehsanullah vs. The State (2012 SCMR 1133) and Zaigham
Ashraf vs. The State and others (2016 SCMR 18).
4. Learned DPG for the State
and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of post-arrest
bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in
commission of incident by causing fire shot injury to deceased Hoath. In support of their contention, they have relied
upon cases of Sher Muhammad vs. The
State (2008 SCMR 1451) and Sohail Waqar
alias Sohaila vs. The State and others (2017 SCMR
325).
5. I have considered the above
arguments and perused the record.
6. The name of the applicant is
appearing in FIR with specific allegation that he with rest of the culprits
after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common
object committed Qatl-e-Amd
of deceased Piyaro, Rehmatullah
and Hoath by causing them fire shot injuries. The
specific role of causing fire shot injuries to deceased Hoath
is attributed to him. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the
applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the
complainant party on account of their enmity. The enmity between the parties
may be there, but it may not be reason for false involvement of the applicant
in this case at the cost of lives of three innocent persons. On further
investigation, it might have been concluded by the police that the applicant
has not participated in commission of the offence effectively but there could
be made no denial to the fact that such opinion of the police is not enough to
disbelieve the complainant and his witnesses. There appear reason grounds to
believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence with which he is charged.
7. The case law relied upon by
the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In case of Ehsanullah (supra) the main reason for which the applicant
was admitted to bail that there was generalize and collective evidence against
him. In the instant matter, the applicant is alleged to have fired at deceased Piyaro specifically. In case of Zaigham
Ashraf (supra), the main reason for admitting the
accused to bail was that he at the time of incident was found to be in prison.
The applicant has not been found to be in prison at the time of incident.
8. In view of above, while
relying upon the case law referred by learned DPG for the State and learned counsel
for the complainant, it could be concluded safely that no case for grant of
bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently, the instant bail application
is dismissed.
Judge