ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr.B.A.No.S-18 of 2020

DATE                          ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application.

04.05.2020.

Mr. Ahmed Bux Abro, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Khoso, Advocate for complainant Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, 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, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Juman, by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by making fires in air  to create harassment, 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 prayed 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 on account of previous enmity; no specific injury to the deceased is attributed to the applicant; there is no independent witness to the incident and co-accused Abdul Qadir has already been admitted to bail, therefore, the guilt of the applicant according to him is calling for further enquiry. In support of his contention he relied upon cases of Ehsanullah vs. The State (2012 SCMR-1137) and Rashid Ali vs.The State & another(2013 MLD-843).

4.                 Learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that the applicant has actively participated in commission of the incident by causing fire shot injury to the deceased and after incident he has gone in absconsion for considerable period and now is defeating trial for one or other reason.

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 Juman, by causing him fire shot injury only to satisfy his grudge over issue of kids’ fight. The specific role of causing one of fire injury to the deceased 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. The applicant after committing the alleged incident has preferred to go in absconsion for considerable period, such absconsion he has not been able to explain plausibly, which reflects adversely on his case. The applicant is having a different case to that of co-accused Abdul Qadir, he obviously was attributed no active role in commission of the incident. The applicant as said above is attributed active role in commission of the incident. It is true that there is no independent witness to the incident but there could be made no denial to the fact that the complainant and his witnesses are natural witness to the incident and there appears no reason to disbelieve them at this stage. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence with 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

Ehsanullah (supra), the bail was granted to accused mainly for the reason that he on investigation was not found to be available at the scene of incident. No such finding is arrived at in favour of the applicant by the police in the instant case. In case of Rashid Ali (supra), the bail was granted to accused mainly for the reason that he was only present at the spot without weapon. In the instant, the applicant being armed with deadly weapon went over to the complainant party and then committed death of deceased by causing him one of the fire shot injury.

8.                Based upon above discussion, it could be concluded safely that the applicant is not found entitled to be released on bail. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed accordingly.

                                                                                             J U D G E