ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No. S-98 of 2018.

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Applicant: Ibrahim Shar son of Lal Bux @ Laly bycaste Shar, Resident of Kacho Area, Ubauro, Taluka Ubauro, District Ghotki.

Through Mr. Ali Ahmed Khan advocate.

The State: Through Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing. 05-11-2018.

Date of decision. 05-11-2018.

O R D E R.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- By this Order, I intend to dispose of the instant bail application arising out of Crime No. 01/2015, offence u/s 302, 365-A, 395, 148, 149 P.P.C and 7 ATA registered at PS Wasti Jeewan Shah. This bail application is directed against the order dated 03-02-2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ubauro, whereby the Bail Application of applicant/accused Ibrahim Shar was declined.

2. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Karim Bux Dhoondho lodged the F.I.R. on 02-01-2015 alleging therein that Abdul Razzaq aged about 23/24 years was his son. The complainant owns goats and sheep cattle, which was being grazed by him and his son Abdul Razzaq. On 01-01-2015, the complainant along with his above-named son were grazing the said cattle in the jungle near their house. At about 1330 hours, they saw and identified notorious culprits namely Yaseen, SAcho, Nadir, Fateh Muhammad @ Fatoo, Kamil armed with G-3 rifles, Shaman, Dakil, Umar, Ghulam Abbas, Ali Bux, Wali Muhammad, Adam, Janoo, Khambhro, Ibrahim, Bashir @ Basho, Haboo, Sultan @ Moro and three unknown accused armed with Kalashnikovs came there. While coming, accused Yaseen, Sachol, Nadir, Fateh Muhammad @ Fatoo and Kamil kidnapped Abdul Razzaq the son of the complainant for ransom, while other accused persons took away the cattle and went away towards west. Due to fear of weapons, complainant remained calm. Later-on complainant raised cries which attracted to PW Rahib Ali and Lal Bux, who came with their licensed weapons and they chased the accused persons. When they reached near the accused persons, the PWs also saw and identified the accused persons to be same. The complainant party then resisted with the accused persons, but accused Yaseen, Sachol, Nadir, Fateh Muhammad @ Fatoo and Kamil made straight fires upon the son of the complainant with the intention to commit his murder, which hit him and fell down on the ground. Then all the accused persons along with robbed cattle went towards west. Complainant saw that his son Abdul Razzaq sustained firearm injuries on various parts of his body and died at the spot. The dead body was removed to hospital Ubauro and after post-mortem the same was returned to the complainant and after funeral ceremony complainant lodged the above said F.I.R.

3. It is, inter-alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that although the names of the applicant/accused transpired in the F.I.R., but no any specific role is attributed by the complainant against him and there are general allegations; that during investigation, the I/O has not collected the empties from the place of incident; that applicant/accused was arrested on 28-02-2017, but nothing any incriminating article has been recovered from his possession, therefore, applicant/accused is entitled for the concession of bail. He has placed his reliance on cases reported in 2011 MLD 1091 UMED Ali versus THE STATE, 2005 P.Cr.L.J 596 [Lahore] MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus THE STATE, 2006 p.Cr.L.J 1611 [Karachi] WARYAM versus THE STATE and 1999 SCMR 1320 ATTAULLAH and 3 others versus THE STATE.

4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed for the grant of bail to the applicant/accused on the argued that applicant/accused is nominated in the F.I.R. as he being armed with Kalashnikov along with co-accused came at the place of incident, facilitated to each other and committed robbery of cattle and after resistance of complainant party they committed murder of Abdul Razzaq a young son of complainant; that during investigation I/O has collected 28 empties from the place of incident; that applicant/accused remained fugitive from law for about 02 years and 10 months; that after registration of F.I.R. I/O has recorded 161 CrPC statements of the PWs, who have supported the version of complainant, therefore, they are not entitled for concession of post-arrest bail.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned DPG for the State and have gone through the material available on the record.

6. From perusal of record, it appears that the name of applicant/accused Ibrahim transpires in the F.I.R., although no any specific role has been attributed to him, but he being armed with Kalashnikov along with co-accused came at the place of incident and committed the robbery of cattle (goats and sheep) from the complainant and so also abducted away his son for ransom purpose. After arrival of PWs, the complainant party chased the accused persons and resisted with them, but accused Yaseen, Sachlo, Nadir, Fateh Muhammad @ Fatoo and Kamil made straight fires upon Abdul Razzaq, the son of complainant with intention to commit his murder, which hit him and died at the spot, while applicant/accused along with other co-accused robbed away the cattle of complainant party. In a dacoity with a murder, the all accused persons nominated in the FIR are conjointly responsible for the commission of the offence. The delay in lodging FIR has properly been explained by the complainant that after completing funeral ceremony of his son, he has lodged the FIR. Even otherwise, delay per se in the lodging of FIR is no ground for grant of bail as each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. The perusal of record further shows that the prosecution witnesses have supported the version of the complainant and they have fully implicated the applicant/accused with the commission of the offence. Furthermore, applicant/accused has remained fugitive from the law for about 02 years and 10 months. The applicant/accused is involved in a heinous offence and the case of the applicant/accused squarely falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The case law relied on learned counsel for the applicant/accused are quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant/accused has failed to make out his case for grant of bail, as there is sufficient material available on record to connect him with the commission of the alleged offence, hence I do not find a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant/accused. Resultantly the instant bail application is dismissed.

8. Needless, to mention here, that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.

Judge

Nasim/P.A