ORDERSHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.
Cr.
Bail Application No. S-257 of 2019
________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________
For
hearing of Bail Application.
08-07-2019.
Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Dayo Advocate along
with applicant / accused.
Syed
Sardar Ali Shah D.P.G.
None
present for complainant.
.-.-.-.-.-
Applicant / accused Shabbir Ahmed is present on
interim pre-arrest bail granted to him by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2019.
Today this bail application is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.
2. The
brief facts of the case are that on 11.06.2010 at 1700 hours complainant ASI Muhammad
Bux Leghari registered FIR of this case against accused at PS Sarhad on behalf
of the State, stating therein thaton 10.06.2010, he along with his subordinate staff namely PC
Ghulam Yaseen, PC Rehmatullah, PC Fayyaz Ahmed and DHC Manzoor Ahmed left PS
vide DD entry No.16 for patrolling, when they reached at NHA near engro power
plant Sarhad, it was 1400 hours, where they saw that a pair of bikes on road
and five persons were available there. There was hue and cry. They
identified to be Shahzado, Shabbir Ahmed
(present applicant /accused ), both armed with pistols, Mooso empty handed,
Pehlwan armed with pistol and Ghulam Hussain. Accused Mooso Chachar instigated
co-accused to kill Ghulam Hussain as he was Karo with Mst. Bashiran Chachar. On
such instigation, accused Shahzado, Shabir and Pehlwan made fires from their
pistols upon Ghulam Hussain, who having received fire arm injuries fell down,
while raising cries and before arrival of the police party, all the accused succeeded
to escape away on their bikes. The complainant saw that his brother Ghulam
Hussain had received fire arm injuries on various parts of his body, blood was
oozing from his injuries and he succumbed to injuries. Thereafter complainant
along with subordinate staff brought the dead body of Ghulam Hussain at Taluka
Hospital Ghotki, where his postmortem was conducted. Thereafter dead body was
hand over to one Pandhi, brother of deceased ultimately above FIR was lodged.
3. It
is stated by learned counsel for the applicant /accused that the applicant /
accused is innocent and has not committed the alleged crime but complainant has
malafidely involved him in this case. He further argued that there is
inordinate delay of more than 24 hours in lodging of the FIR, though the
complainant is police official. He further argued that previously applicant
/accused was granted interim pre-arrest bail by the trial Court on 03.08.2010
but as he was serving in Pakistan Army hence he was forced by his superiors to
attend his duty hence his bail application was dismissed. He argued that
co-accused Mooso and Pehlwan have already been granted bail by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for applicant / accused submits that compromise has been filed
by all the accused involved in this case with the legal heirs of the deceased
Ghulam Hussain and there is likelihood of compromise in between the legal heirs
of the deceased and the present accused involved in this case.
4. When
all the facts were confronted to learned DPG for reply, he recorded his no
objection if the bail to present applicant / accused is granted.
5. I
have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have
gone through the case papers so made available before me. Admittedly the name
of the applicant /accused transpires in the FIR but during the investigation
I.O of the case placed his name in column No.2 along with co-accused Mooso and
Pehlwan but applicant was joined by concerned Magistrate without any valid
ground. It is an admitted position that
accused Mooso and Pehlwan have also been granted bail by the trial Court. It is
also admitted position that during investigation the name of applicant /
accused Shabbir Ahmed, Mooso and Pehlwan were shown in column No.2. The case and claim of the applicant / accused
is that he had not participated in the commission of crime but due to enmity
his name has been shown in the FIR.
6. From
perusal of record it appears that the case in hand appears to be of two
versions, one has been placed by the complainant of the case in FIR and other
is of I.O of the case and it is yet to be seen / determined at the time of
trial which version is correct one, till then the case of the applicant /
accused requires further probe. It appears from the record that the applicant /
accused has also been granted interim pre-arrest bail by the trial court but
subsequently it was recalled due to absence of the present applicant /accused
and bail has been rejected to the present applicant on the ground that after
grant of interim pre-arrest bail he remained absconder for considerable period.
To my tentative opinion it is not a ground for refusal to bail if otherwise he is
entitled for bail. Sufficient material is available on record to show that the
case of the applicant / accused requires further probe. As far as ground of
absconsion is concerned , accused Pehlwan has also remained absconder from the
trial Court for considerable period but after his arrest he has been granted
granted bail by the trial court, therefore, the case of the present applicant /
accused is on same footings to the case of co-accused Pehlwan as far as period
of absconsion is concerned. It is alleged in FIR that present applicant along
with accused Shahzado and Pehlwan jointly fired at deceased by their pistols
and it is also yet to be determined at the time of trial which fire was fatal
for causing the murder of deceased.
7. In
view of above, I confirm interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the
applicant / accused on same terms and conditions with directions to the
applicant / accused to appear before the trial Court to face trial. In case the
applicant / accused misuses the bail the trial Court would be competent to
cancel the bail of the applicant / accused without making any reference to this
Court.
8. Needless to mention here that
observations, if any, made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not
influence the trial court while deciding the case of the applicant/accused on
merits.
The bail application stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
Irfan/PA.