ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr.B.A.No.S-172 of 2020

DATE                          ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application.

11.05.2020.

Mr. Imdad Ali Tunio, Advocate for the applicant.

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

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

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, being armed with deadly weapons, went over to the complainant party and then committed Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Nawaz and Munir Ahmed, by causing them fire shot injuries 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, 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 only to satisfy its land dispute with him; the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of causing burst fires to deceased Munir Ahmed on his left thigh, which is belied  by the complainant to be on right thigh during course of his evidence recorded in absentia, the same even otherwise was not on vital part of body of deceased Munir Ahmed; co-accused Ghulam Ali alias Gulo has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court and the postmortem reports of the deceased have been issued with considerable delay; the complainant and PWs are related inter-se; therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contention he relied upon cases Abid Vs.The State and others (2016 SCMR-907) and Wajid Ali Vs.The State and another (2017 SCMR-116).

4.                    Learned D.P.G for the State has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident by causing fire shot injuries to deceased Munir Ahmed on his left thigh and after incident he has gone in absconsion for about six years.           

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

6.                    The name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that he with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, being armed with deadly weapons, went over to the complainant party and then committed Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Nawaz and Munir Ahmed by causing them fire shot injuries and then went away by making fires in air to create harassment. The specific role of causing burst fire injuries to deceased Munir Ahmed on his left thigh is attributed to the applicant. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party on account of its dispute with him over the landed property. The dispute over the landed property between the applicant and complainant party might be existing but it may not be a reason for false involvement of the applicant in the present case at the cost of lives of two innocent persons. The applicant after committing the alleged incident has preferred to go in absconsion for about six years and such absconsion he has not been able to explain plausibly, which adversely reflected upon his case.  It is true that co-accused Ghulam Nabi alias Gulo has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court but there could be made no denial to the fact that his role is distinguishable to that of applicant. Needless to say that, his role in the alleged incident was only to the extent of instigation. There might be dispute in FIR and evidence of the complainant party with regard to location of injuries of deceased Munir Ahmed being on his left or right thigh but it is not enough to disbelieve the case of prosecution at this stage. All the injuries sustained by deceased Munir Ahmed even otherwise have collectively been found to be sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature. The postmortem reports of the deceased might have been issued with delay but such delay could not be resolved at this stage. The deeper appreciation of facts and circumstances is not permissible at bail stage. The complainant and PWs may be related inter-se but their relationship is not enough to disbelieve them at this stage. They are appearing to be natural witnesses to the incident. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence for which he is charged.

7.                    The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In case of Abid (supra), accused was admitted to bail mainly for the reason that co-accused with similar role has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court. In the instant case, co-accused who has already been admitted to bail was having a different role. In case of Wajid Ali (supra), the accused was admitted to bail mainly for the reason that he caused fire shot injury to complainant. In the instant case, the role attributed to applicant in the alleged incident is that he caused burst fire shots to deceased Munir Ahmed, which hit on his left thigh.

8.                    Consequent upon above discussion, the instant bail application is dismissed.

J U D G E