ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Appln. No.S- 576 of 2018

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of bail application

26.04.2019

Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Dayo Advocate for the Applicant

Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed M. Junejo Advocate for the complainant

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprit in furtherance of their common intention committed Qatl-e-amd of Asghar Ali by causing him fire shot injuries, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge Sukkur has 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 applicant that applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to settle their dispute with him over landed property, co-accused Muhammad Hassan has already been admitted to bail; no effective role in commission of incident is attributed to the applicant; and he as such is liable to be released on bail on point of further enquiry.

4. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant sought for dismissal of the instant bail application by contending that the applicant has facilitated the co-accused Muhammad Ibrahim in committing the death of deceased and after commission of incident he has preferred to go in absconsion.

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

6. The role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent that he with co-accused caught hold the deceased when he was fired at by co-accused Muhammad Ibrahim. The parties are already disputed over landed property. In that situation, the involvement of the applicant in commission of the incident on point of vocarious liability is calling for further inquiry.

7. In case of Mitho Pitafi vs. The State (2009 SCMR 299), it has been held by Honourable Apex Court that;

“----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Bail, grant of---Co-accused was released on bail by the Trial Court, but the concession of bail was declined to the accused petitioner on the ground that he was fugitive from law---High Court as well as the Trial Court had rejected the bail of petitioner on account of his absconsion and not on merits---Validity---Bail could be granted, if accused had good case for bail on merits and mere his absconsion would not come in the way while granting him bail---High Court had not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective while declining bail to the petitioner---Petition was converted into appeal and same was allowed---Impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail, in circumstances.”

8. In case of Mehmood Akhtar and others vs. Haji Nazir Ahmed and others (1995 SCMR 310), it has been held by Honourable Apex Court that;

“Section 497. Bail ---Accused was alleged to have caught hold of deceased before he was given injuries by his co-accused--- Matter with regard to the accused being that of further enquiry, Supreme Court converted the petition into appeal and accused was granted bail.”

9. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

10. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

Judge

ARBROHI