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