ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Appln. No.S- 74 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 2^nd 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 Piyaro. 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 Piyaro 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