IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-463 of 2018

Applicant               :                Muhammad Ibrahim s/o Allah Dino Panhwar

Through Mr.Ashiq Ali Jatoi,   Advocate

Complainant       :                  Ghulam Nabi Panhwar, through

Mr.Muhammad Ali Pirzado, Advocate

State                              :                  Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi,  A.P.G.

Date of hearing   :                  02.11.2018          

Date of order      :                  02.11.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the present applicant with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Riaz Hussain by causing fire shot injuries, for that the present case was registered.

2.                On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Qamber, 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 to satisfy their enmity with him, the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of instigation, as such his participation in commission of the incident on point of vicarious liability is calling for further enquiry. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail pending trial. In support of his contentions he relied upon cases of Muhammad Irfan vs. The state and others (2014 SCMR-1347), 2). Syed Amanullah Shah vs. the State and another (PLD 1996 SC-241), 3). Ganhwar Bhutto Vs. The State (2011 MLD-210), 4). Gadal vs. the State (2010 PCr.LJ-280), 5). Raja Abdul Manaf vs. the State (1986 PCr.LJ-465) and 6). Gul vs. the State ( 2018 YLR Note-226).

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.G have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that the applicant has actively participated in commission of the incident by playing role of instigation. By contending so, they sought for dismissal of the instant bail application.

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

6.                No doubt the name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR but there could be made no denial to the fact that the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of instigation. Whether the applicant actually participated in commission of the incident with vicarious liability? It requires determination at trial. The parties are already disputed. In that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on point of further enquiry.

7.                In view of facts and reasons discussed above and while relying upon the case law referred by learned counsel for the applicant, 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.  

8.                The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                            J U D G E

 ..