IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-480 of 2018

Applicants               :              1). Javed s/o Muhammad Ali

2). Sajjad Ali s/o Abdul Majeed Khor

Through Mr.Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate

Complainant       :                  Aurangzeb Khor, through

Mr.Ahsan Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate

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

Date of hearing   :                  05.11.2018          

Date of order      :                  05.11.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of the instant bail application are that the applicants 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 Babar Ali, by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered. The applicants sought for their release on bail by filing such applications, those were dismissed by learned Sessions Judge Qamber-Shahdadkot @ Qamber, vide order dated 03.03.2017 and by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2017, with direction to learned trial Court to proceed with case expeditiously and examine complainant and at least two eye witnesses of the case preferably within period of three months and thereafter, the applicants were provided with an opportunity to repeat the application for their release on bail. The applicants repeated the application for their release on bail. It was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 18.08.2018, and then they have sought for their release on bail from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 497 Cr.PC.  

2.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party on account of previous enmity, no active role in commission of the incident has been attributed to them, they have been denied concession of bail by learned trial Court without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicants on bail on point of further enquiry.

3.                Learned A.P.G and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in commission of the incident and in compliance to the direction of this Court, the learned trial Court has examined the complainant and his witnesses and no fresh ground has been made available which may justify releasing the applicants on bail. By contending so, they sought for dismissal of the instant application.

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

5.                There is no denial to the fact that this Court while dismissing the earlier bail application of the applicants has directed learned trial Court to examine the complainant and his two witnesses preferably within period of three months. The direction so issued by this Court as per learned A.P.G and learned counsel for the complainant has been complied with by learned trial Court by examining the complainant and his witnesses and no fresh ground is made available which may justify releasing the applicants on bail by ignoring the earlier finding of this Court on  merits of the case. Even otherwise, there was nothing in order of this Court, which may suggest that after examination of the complainant and his witnesses within period of three months, the applicants would be entitled to be released on bail as matter of right ignoring the merits of the case.

6.                In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the instant application for release of the applicants on bail is dismissed with direction to learned trial Court to conclude the trial preferably within period of two months.

                                                                            J U D G E

..