IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-493 of 2018

Applicant                :                        Ahmed Ali s/o Sikandar Ali Khakhrani,                 Through Mr.Saleem Raza Jakhar, Advocate

Complainant           :                       Ramzan Khakhrani through

Mr.Ahmed Bux Abro, Advocate

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

Date of hearing      :                       09.11.2018             

Date of order          :                       09.11.2018                         

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, not only committed Qatl-e-Amd of Sajjad Ali by causing him fire shot injuries but caused fire shot injuries to complainant Ramzan and PWs Punhal and Aijaz, with intention to commit their murder and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2.                    On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 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 only to settle with him their old enmity, the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of aerial firing, co-accused Ameen wit utmost similar role has already been admitted to bail, as such according to him, the involvement of the applicant in commission of the incident is calling for further enquiry. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Nisar Ahmed vs. the State and others (2014 SCMR-27).

4.                    Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident by making aerial firing.

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

6.                    Admittedly, the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of aerial firing. Co-accused Ameen with utmost similar role has already been admitted to bail. The parties are already disputed, in that context the involvement of the applicant in commission of the incident obviously is calling for further enquiry.

7.                    In view of facts and reasons discussed above, while relying the case law which is referred by learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- 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

..