ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr.B.A.No.S-79 of 2020

DATE                          ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application.

27.04.2020.

Mr. Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr.Athar Abbas Solangi, Advocate for the complainant.

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

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

Irshad Ali Shah J;- It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant with rest of the culprits, being armed with deadly weapons, in prosecution of their common object, committed Qatl-e-Amd Muhammad Panjal, by causing him fire shot injury 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 6^th Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, 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 in order to satisfy their dispute with him over the disconnection of electric supply; the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing, therefore, vicarious liability in commission of the incident on his part is calling for further inquiry. In support of his contention, he relied upon cases of Muhammad Irfan Vs. The State and others (2014 SCMR-1347) and Nisar Ahmed Vs. The State and others (2014 SCMR-27).

4.                 It is contended by learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant has actively participated in commission of the incident by making fires in air and from him on arrest has been secured incriminating Kalashnikov and the same has been matched the empties secured from the place of incident, therefore, according to them, the applicant is not entitled to grant of post arrest bail. In support of their contention, they relied upon cases of Muhammad Imran & others Vs.The State(2008 PCr.LJ-1555), 2).Muhammad Sharif Vs.The State (2010 MLD-1342) and 3).Muhammad Aslam Vs.The State (2010 PCr.LJ-914).

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

6.       The specific role of committing death of deceased Muhammad Panjal by causing him fire shot injury is attributed to co-accused Wafa Chandio. The role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making fires in air in order to create harassment. In that situation, the recovery of Kalashnikov allegedly used by the applicant for making fires in air to create harassment could hardly makes him disentitle to concession of bail on point of vicarious liability. Indeed, the guilt of the applicant is calling for further inquiry. 

7.                The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on similar facts and circumstances, same having been laid by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan even otherwise have got preference over the case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant.

8.       In view of above, the applicant is admitted to 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.

9.       The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                             J U D G E