IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Application No.S-243 of 2018
Applicant : Rehmatullah s/o Inayatullah Marfani
Through Mr. Anwar Ali Janwari, Advocate
State : Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G.
Date of hearing : 19.10.2018
Date of order : 19.10.2018
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 Marfani by causing him fire shot injuries to settle their grudge with him and then went by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.
2. On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, 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 complainant party on account of previous enmity, there is delay of one day in lodgment of the FIR, no fire shot injury to the deceased is attributed to the applicant specifically, the deceased has sustained only three fire shot injuries and the complainant and his witnesses are related inter-se. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further enquiry. In support of his contention he relied upon cases Muhammad Ameen Vs. the State (1987 PCr.LJ-1414), and 2). Jaffar & others Vs. the State (1980 SCMR-784).
4. Learned A.P.G has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that the vicarious liability on the part of the applicant is very much evident.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that he with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, being armed with deadly weapons, went over to the complainant party and then fired and killed the deceased only to satisfy their grudge with him as is detailed in the FIR. The firing was indiscriminate, which left no room for the complainant party to recognize as to which of the injury was caused to the deceased by which of the accused, as such, it would be hard to release the applicant on bail only for the reason that no injury to the deceased is attributed to him specifically. The vicarious liability is very much evident of the record on the part of applicant. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. No doubt there is delay of one day in lodgment of the FIR, but it is explained plausibly in FIR itself. The delay in lodgment of the FIR even otherwise could not be resolved in favour of the applicant by this Court at this stage. The complainant and her witnesses may be related inter-se but their relationship is not enough to disbelieve them at this stage. They are appearing to be natural witnesses to the incident. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence for which he is charged.
7. The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In case of Muhammad Ameen and others (supra), the deceased has died of two lathi injuries, which was not regarded as deadly weapon. In the instant matter, the deceased has been done to death by causing him fire shot injuries. In case of Jaffar and others (supra), there was counter version of the incident. In the instant matter, there is no counter version of the incident.
8. Above are the reasons of short order dated 19.10.2018; whereby the instant application of the applicant for his release on bail was dismissed.
JUDGE