ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr.
Bail Application No. S-387 of 2016.
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
Present
Mr. Justice Amjad
Ali Sahito.
Applicants:
Atta Muhammad son of Ali Khan, through Mr. Sher
Muhammad Shar Advocate.
1. Ghulam Shabbir alias Shabbir son of Arbab Ali
2. Rafique Ahmed son of Shahnawaz
3. Shahid Hussain
son of Ghulam Mustafa, through Mr. Wasim Raja Leghari Advocate.
Complainant. Mst. Khairan wife of Mir Muhammad Mugheri,
through Mr. Saeed Jamal Lund, advocate.
Respondent The
State, through Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi,
Deputy Prosecutor General.
Date
of hearing. 29-10-2018.
Date of decision. 29-10-2018.
O R D E R.
AMJAD
ALI SAHITO, J.- Through the instant bail application, applicants/accused
Atta Muhammad Shar, Ghulam Shabbir alias Shabbir Bhanbhro, Rafique Ahmed Soomro and Shahid Hussain Rind seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 83 of 2015 for the offences u/s 302, 395 P.P.C registered with police station Hingorja. Prior to this,
his pre-arrest bail application of the
applicants/accused was declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge Gambat vide order dated 15-06-2016, hence they have filed
the instant bail application.
2. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that
complainant Mr. Khairan lodged the F.I.R. on 25-05-2015 alleging therein that on 27-02-2015
she along with her family members were present in the house. At about 3-30 am
several police officials namely Mir Imdad Hussain Talpur S.H.O PS Mirwah, HC Shabbir Bhanbhro of PS Mirwah, Rafique Ahmed Pathan S.H.O PS Setharja, HC Atta Muhammad Shar
of PS Setharja, PC Shahid Hussain Rind of PS Setharja, Amir
Pathan S.H.O PS Hingorja and 10/12 unidentified police personnel armed with
official weapons entered into the house and overpowered upon the complainant
party and caused them butt blows and dragged Ayaz
Muharram and Punhal sons of the complainant forcibly.
They also broken the locks of iron box and robbed cash Rs. 20,000/- golden
ornaments, mobile phones, goats and one cock and scattered the household articles and taken away the sons of the
complainant and confined them at police
station Hingorja. Complainant along with Ayaz and Mir Muhammad went to PS Hingorja
and at 5-00 am time, accused took out his son Muharram and on the instigation
of accused Mir Imdad Talpur
and Amir Pathan, accused Shabbir
Bhanbhro and Atta Muhammad Shar made straight fires
upon Muharram Ali and committed his murder. The complainant approached to high ups and then filed such application
before Ex-Office Justice of Peace for registration of and after getting an order from the Court,
she appeared at the police station and
lodged the above said F.I.R.
3. It
is, inter-alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused
Atta Muhammad that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in this case by the complainant; that there is delay of about 3
months in lodgment of the F.I.R and such delay has not been plausibly explained
by the complainant; that co-accused Mir Imdad Hussain against whom the NBWs were issued by the trial
Court, but the same were converted into BWs and accused was directed to furnish
surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-; that after conducting the investigation, the
case was disposed of under "B" class, but the same was not challenged
by the complainant party; that prior to this an F.I.R No. 35/2015 was
registered by Amir Pathan S.H.O
PS Hingorja wherein the son of the complainant was
killed during encounter, therefore, the false implication of applicant/accused
cannot be ruled out and his guilt requires further enquiry and he is entitled
for concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. Learned
counsel for applicants/accused Ghulam Shabbir alias Shabbir, Rafique Ahmed and Shahid Hussain mainly contended that applicants/accused are
innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case; that PW Ayaz was in lockup and such mashirnama of arrest being
annexure-J at page No. 95 is available as such he is not the eyewitness of the
incident; that applicants/accused have not misused the concession of pre-arrest
bail. He lastly prayed that it is fit case for further enquiry and interim pre-arrest
bail already granted to the applicants/accused may be confirmed.
5. On
the other hand learned counsel for complainant submitted that this is a case of
two version, which will be decided by the trial Court that which version
is correct; that all the witnesses have supported the version of complainant,
therefore, he prayed for dismissal of bail application.
6. Learned
DPG for the State has also opposed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail
to all the applicants/accused on the ground that PW Mir Muhammad has fully
implicated the applicants/accused and supported the version of the complainant;
that name of applicants/accused appeared in the F.I.R. with specific role; that
delay has properly been explained by the complainant.
5. I
have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants/accused,
learned counsel for complainant, learned DPG for the State and have gone
through the material available on the record.
6. It
is an admitted position that the names of the applicants/accused find place in the F.I.R. with specific role that on the instigation of
accused Mir Imdad Ali and Amir Pathan,
accused Shabbir Bhanbhro
and Atta Muhammad Shar directly fired upon the deceased Muharram, resultantly a
young man has lost his life. Furthermore, PW Mir Muhammad in his statement u/s
161 Cr P C has fully supported the version of complainant and medical report
shows that the death of deceased Muharram Ali is unnatural one. The delay has
properly been explained by the complainant as she has filed an application
before the Ex-Office Justice of Peace/Additional
Sessions Judge Gambat and after getting such order
from the Court she appeared at police station and lodged the F.I.R against the
police officials, who were posted at police station Hingorja.
From the perusal of F.I.R, it appears that she tried her level best to lodge
F.I.R, which took time and finally she has succeeded,
hence delay has properly been explained. As far as disposal of case under
"B" class, learned DPG has rightly pointed out that F.I.R. was lodged
against the police officials and I/O has not conducted fair investigation and
has leaned in favour of his colleagues, but learned
Magistrate took the cognizance, hence report u/s 173 Cr P C is not binding upon
the Court. Sufficient material is available on record to connect the present
applicants/accused in the commission of the offence, whereas, the offence with
which the applicants/accused are charge entails capital punishment which falls
within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P C. At
bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made.
8. In
view of the above, the instant pre-arrest
bail application is dismissed and the interim order dated 20-06-2016 granted to
the applicants/accused is hereby recalled.
9.
Needless, to mention
that the observations made hereinabove
are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of either party at
trial.
Judge
Nasim/P.A