IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-393 of 2018

 

Applicants               :              1). Siraj son of Saeed Ahmed

                                                            2).  Akhtiar son of Muhammad Lashkari, Through Mr.Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate

 

Complainant         :                Ghulam Yasin through

                                                Mr.Rafiq Ahmed Abro, Advocate

 

The State                :               Through Mr.Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.

 

Date of hearing   :                  26.09.2018          

Date of order      :                  26.09.2018                   

 

O R D E R

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of  their common object, fired and killed Ghazi Khan and then went away  by making aerial firing to create harassment,         for that the present case was registered.

2.                On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, the applicants have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s.497 Cr.PC.

3.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party on account of previous enmity; there is delay of about one day in lodgment of the FIR, the name of  applicant Siraj is not appearing in the FIR, the role attributed to the applicants in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing to create harassment, as such the sharing of common intention in commission of the incident on their part according to him is calling for further enquiry. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicants on bail pending trial. In support of his contentions, he relied upon case of Muhammad Irfan vs. the State and others       (2014 SCMR-1347).    

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.G have opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have actually participated in commission of the incident and on arrest from them have been secured the crime weapons. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon case of Muhammad Irfan vs. the State and others (2016 SCMR-1401).

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

6.                There is delay of about eighteen hours in lodgment of the FIR, the same could not be lost sight of. The name of applicant Siraj is not appearing in FIR even, it was disclosed subsequently by the complainant by way of further statement, which appears to be significant. The specific role of committing death of the deceased by causing him fire shot injuries is attributed to co-accused Sajjad and Barkat. The role attributed to the applicants/accused in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing to create harassment. The parties are already disputed. In these circumstances, they could not be denied the concession of bail on point of recovery of alleged crime weapons from them. Indeed, their case obviously is calling for further enquiry.

7.                The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.G is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. It was double murder case and the accused was nominated in the FIR with specific role. In the instant matter, the role attributed to the applicants in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing to create harassment, which has made their case to be of further enquiry.

8.                In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

9.                The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

 

 

                                                                                               J U D G E

.