ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Appln. No.S- 709 of 2018

 

Date                 Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

 

For hearing of bail application

15.04.2019

Mr. Iftikhar Ali Arain Advocate for the Applicant

Mr. Nasrullah Solangi Advocate for the complainant

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional PG 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 by committing trespass into house of complainant Ayaz Ali committed Qatl-e-amd of Waseem and Muhammad Nawaz by causing them fire shot injuries and then abducted him, his father Imdad Ali, his mother Mst. Gulzaran, his sister Mst. Nabeelan and his sister-in-law Mst. Gujar Khatoon for ransom of Rs.20 lacs and then let them to go by causing them fire shot injuries, consequently Imdad Ali, the father of the complainant too died, for that the present case was registered.

2.                    The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Sukkur, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 497 Cr.P.C.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party, the FIR has been lodged with delay of three days, the name of the applicant is not taking place in the FIR, the applicant even otherwise is attributed role of causing fire shot injury to Mst. Gulzar at her Knee and he was arrested by the police much before his actual involvement in the present case. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail, as according to him his case is calling for further enquiry. In support of his contention, he relied upon the case of  Abid Ali alias Ali vs. The State (2011 SCMR 161).

4.                    Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has committed the heinous offence and on arrest from him has been secured the incriminating pistol. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon the case of Mst. Rehmat Bibi & ors others vs. SHO Police Station Karan Sharif & ors (PLD 2016 Sindh 268).

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

6.                    Name and description of the applicant are not appearing in the FIR of the present case though it has been lodged with delay of three days, which appears to be significant, the applicant has been involved in this case on the basis of further statement of the complainant. It is recorded with delay of one month to FIR. The further statement of the complainant could hardly be treated as part of the FIR. No doubt, PW Mst. Gulzar Khatoon has named the applicant in her 161 Cr.P.C statement by attributing role of causing fire shot injury at her Knee, but there could be made no denial to the fact that such statement of Mst. Gulzar Khatoon has been recorded with delay of about one month to the incident. No identification of the applicant was held on his arrest to make it confirm that he actually was one of the culprits involved in the incident. No doubt, from applicant has been secured the incriminating pistol but on the fourth day of his arrest. Much prior to the involvement of the applicant a petition was filed by his father Qurban Ali before Hon’ble High Court of Sindh at Karachi for his wrongful confinement allegedly by the police at Karachi. The involvement of the applicant in this case after filing of such petition before Honourable High Court of Sindh at Karachi, could not be overlooked. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are entitled to grant of bail on point of further enquiry.

7.                    The case law relied upon by learned APG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant has got no relevancy with the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in that case no issue of grant or refusal of bail was involved.                   

8.                    In view of above, while relying upon the case law referred by learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.1000000/- (One Million) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

9.                    Instant Cr. Bail Application is disposed of in above terms.

 

Judge

 

 

ARBROHI