ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-54 of 2020

DATE                          ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application.

10.04.2020.

Mr. Zafar Ali Malgani, Advocate for applicant.

                        Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G for the State.

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

Irshad Ali Shah-J: It is alleged that applicant Abdul Ghafoor with rest of the culprits in prosecution of their common object, committed murder of Muhammad Aslam after keeping him under wrongful restraint, by causing him lathi and fire shot injury and then attempted to cause disappearance of his dead body in order to save themselves from legal consequences,       for that the present case was registered.

2.       The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 497 Cr.P.C.

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; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about three days and co-accused Abdul Rasool and Muhammad Qasim have already been admitted to bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on point of consistency and further inquiry.

4.       Learned D.P.G. for the State has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant while learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has hatched conspiracy of the incident and his case is distinguishable to that of co-accused Abdul Rasool and Muhammad Qasim.

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

6.       The FIR of the incident has been lodged with unplausible delay of about three days, the same as such could not be overlooked; the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent that he prevented the deceased from visiting his house, which could hardly be said to be conspiracy on his part leading to commission of the incident; the applicant is having a better case to that of co-accused Abdul Rasool and Muhammad Qasim, who have already been admitted to bail either by this Court or by learned trial Court. In these circumstances the applicant is found entitled to be released on bail on point of consistency and further inquiry.

7.       In view of above, the instant bail application is allowed. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

                                                                                         J U D G E