ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr.B.A.No.S-52 of 2020

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application.

23.04.2020.

Mr. Pardeep Kumar B.Butani, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate for 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, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, not only committed Qatl-e-Amd of Mst.Safiya by causing her fire shot injuries but caused injuries to Mst.Amnat Khatoon, with intention to commit her murder too, under the pretext that Mst.Safiya was having bad character, and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, 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 in order to satisfy its family dispute with him; the FIR is lodged with delay of about one day; the injury attributed to applicant is on non-vital part of dead body of deceased; the empties were sent to the Forensic Expert with considerable delay; the applicant is in custody for about 11 months; he is apprehending infection of Corona Virus and co-accused Muhammad Sharif alias Sheral has already been admitted to bail by this Court, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on points of further inquiry and consistency. In support of his contentions, he relied upon cases of Meeran Bux v. The State (PLD 1989 SC-347), 2). Fakeer Muhammad and 02 others vs. The State (2007 MLD-340), and 3).Tarique and 03 others vs. the State (2018 MLD-745).

4. Learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to release of the applicant on bail by contending that the applicant is neither innocent nor is involved in this case falsely by the complainant party; the delay of one day in lodgment of the FIR is explained in FIR itself; the injury to the deceased attributed to the applicant was collectively found to be cause of death of the deceased; no accused in case like present one could be admitted to bail only for the reason that he has been in custody for about 11 months and he is apprehending to be vulnerable to Corona Virus and the case of co-accused Muhammad Sharif @ Sheral is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon cases of Muhammad Faiz alias Bhoora vs.The State and another(2015 SCMR-655) and 2).Sohail Waqar alias Sohaila vs.The State and others(2017 SCMR-325).

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, being armed with deadly weapons, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, went over to the complainant party and then not only committed death of Mst.Safiya by causing her fire shot injuries but caused fire shot injuries to Mst.Amnat Khatoon with intention to commit her murder too and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment for the neighborhood. The specific role of causing fire shot injury to Mst.Safiya on her 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. Indeed, there was no reason with the complainant party to have involved the applicant in this case falsely being their close relative. The delay in lodgment of the FIR by one day is explained in FIR itself, the same even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. The injury attributed to the applicant has collectively been found sufficient to cause death of the deceased; therefore, it would be immaterial to say that it was on non-vital part of body of the deceased. The custody of about 11 months is not enough to make the applicant entitle to be released on bail in case like the present one. The applicant could not be ordered to be released on bail on the basis of his apprehension that he is vulnerable to Corona Virus infection and such ground would be a novel and alien to well settled principle of law, which is governing disposal of bail application. It is true that co-accused Muhammad Sharif @ Sheral has already been admitted to bail but there could be made no denial to the fact that his case is distinguishable to that of applicant. No effective role in commission of the incident was attributed to co-accused Muhammad Sharif @ Sheral and complainant party recorded no objection to his release on bail. The applicant has been attributed effective role in commission of the incident and his release is objected by the State and complainant party. The empties might have been subjected to Forensic Expert with delay but such delay could hardly be considered a reason for admitting the applicant to bail in case like present one. It is settled by now that the deeper appreciation of the facts and circumstances is not permissible at bail 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 Meeran Bux (supra), the bail to accused was granted mainly for the reason that the injury to the deceased, attributed to him was not found to be fatal. In the instant case, the injury to the deceased, attributed to the applicant is collectively found to be sufficient to cause death of the deceased. In case of Fakeer Muhammad and others (supra), the accused was admitted to bail mainly for the reason that none has seen him causing death of the deceased. In the instant matter, the complainant party has seen the applicant causing death of the deceased. In case of Tarique and others (supra), the accused were admitted to bail mainly for the reason that none of them caused injury to the deceased. In the instant case, the applicant has caused injury to the deceased.

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.

J U D G E