IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-491 of 2018

Applicant               :                Zulfiqar son of Abdul Jabbar Sangi

Through Mr.Kamran Ahmed Gorar, Advocate

State                    :                  Through Mr.Yasir Arafat, A.P.G.

Date of hearing   :                  05.10.2018

Date of order      :                  05.10.2018

O R D E R

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, being armed with deadly weapons, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Abdul Hameed by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by misappropriating his money worth Rs.20,000/-, show-cause notice and licensed pistol besides making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2.                On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, the applicant has 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 applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police, there is delay of one day in recording 161 Cr.PC statements of PWs, the parties are already disputed, complainant Abdul Khaliq and PW Rab Nawaz by filing their affidavits have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further enquiry.

4.                Learned A.P.G for the State recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that the complainant and PW Rab Nawaz by filing their affidavits have declared the applicant to be innocent.

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

6.                The applicant is named in FIR with specific role but he as per affidavits filed by complainant Abdul Khaliq and PW Rab Nawaz was not named by them before the police in FIR or 161 Cr.PC statement. By stating so in their affidavits, they have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant. In that situation, the guilt of the applicant obviously is calling for further enquiry.

7.                In case of Muhammad Najeeb vs. the State (2009 SCMR-448), it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that;

“---Bail, grant of---Complainant initially had nominated the accused in the FIR, but later on through an affidavit he had expressed his satisfaction with regard to the innocence of the accused and did not want to proceed with the matter---Courts below had failed to consider the said aspect of the matter---Case of accused, thus, was of further inquiry---Accused was admitted to bail accordingly [p. 450] A.

8.                In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- 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

..