ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Appl. No. S-119 of 2018

Date                                        Order with signature of Judge

                                                                        For hearing of bail application

23.04.2018

Mr. Irshad Hussain Dharejo, Advocate for applicant

Mr. M. S Bukhari, Advocate for complainant

Mr. Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi DPG

.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,

                       It is alleged that the present applicant with the rest of the culprits in furtherance of common intention committed qatl-i-amnd of Azizullah by causing him fire shot injuries on the matter of supply of electricity wire, for that present case was registered. Present applicant sought for release on bail by way of filing an application u/s 497 Cr.PC, but it was dismissed by the learned trial court. He now sought for release on bail from this court by way of instant application u/s 497 Cr.PC.

                       It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has falsely been involved in this case by the complainant, there is one day delay in lodging of the FIR, no active role has been attributed to present applicant, co-accused Altaf has already been admitted to bail. By contending so, he sought for release of on bail to present applicant, as according to him, his case is calling for further enquiry. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon case of Muhammad Irfan vs. The State which is reported in 2014 SCMR 1347. 2) Case of Abid Ali vs. The State which is reported in 2016 SCMR 906 and 3) Case of Wajid Ali vs. The State which is reported in 2017 SCMR 116.

                       It is contended by learned counsel for complainant that the applicant is not innocent nor involved falsely in this case, he is hardened criminal and having role of instigation to rest of accused to commit murder of deceased. By contending so, he opposed to grant of bail to the present applicant. In support of his contentions he relied upon case of Muhammad Zaman Sandhu vs. The State which is reported at 1995 P.Cr. L J 1120, 2. Case of Jawad Hassan and 3 others vs. SHO PS Kot Addu, District Muzafargarh and another, which is reported at 2009 P.Cr. L J 132, 3. Case of Haji Gulu Khan vs. Gul Daraz Khan and another which is reported at 1995 SCMR 1765, 4. Case of Aftab Ali Khan vs. The State which is reported at 2003 YLR 2320, 5. Case of Chiragh Din and others vs. The State which is reported at PLD 1967 SC 340 and 6. Case of Kaleem Abass vs. The State and another which is reported at 2011 YLR 432.

                       Learned DPG has conceded to grant of bail by contending that case of present applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Altaf, who has already been granted bail. In support of his contention he relied upon case of Kaleemullah vs. The State which is reported at 2017 SCMR 19.

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

                       There is delay of one day in lodging of the FIR, which cannot be lost sight of in the circumstances. Specific role of firing is attributed to co-accused Imdad Ali. The role of present applicant in commission of the offence is only to the extent he instigated his participant apparently is calling for further inquiry. Co-accused Altaf has already been granted bail. In that situation, it has rightly been contended by learned counsel for applicant that he is also entitled to bail on rule of consistency and further inquiry.

                       In view of the above, while relying upon the case law cited by learned counsel for the applicant, present applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 300,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

                       Instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                                J U D G E

Rafi