ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl.Bail Appln. No. S – 242 of 2020

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For Hearing of bail application

22.06.2020

Mr. Achar Khan Gabole Advocate for the Applicant

Mr. Muhammad Juman Sahito Advocate along with complainant

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG 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 committed Qatl-e-Amd of Israr Ahmed by causing him hatchet, iron rod and lathi injuries and then went away by insulting the complainant party and 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 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 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 in order to satisfy their previous enmity with him; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about two days; the identity of the applicant on light of bulb is a weak piece of evidence; no injury to deceased with hatchet was found on his medical examination, therefore, the applicant according to him is entitled to be released on bail as his case is calling for further enquiry.

4. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed for grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in the commission of the incident, which fact is proved as he himself has sustained injury at the hands of co-accused during course of the incident; and the deceased has sustained hatchet blow at the hands of the applicant which is available on his person in shape of rupture.

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

6. The name of the applicant is appearing in FIR with specific allegation that he with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object went over to the complainant party and then committed death of the deceased by causing him lathi, iron rod and hatchet injuries. The specific role of causing hatchet blow to the deceased is attributed to the applicant, therefore, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. In provisional medical certificate, no doubt it is opined by the Medical Officer that the deceased was found sustaining injuries with hard blunt substance but there could be made no denial to the fact that such provisional opinion could hardly be allowed to prevail over ocular account of evidence whereby the applicant is specifically alleged to have caused hatchet blow to the deceased. The deeper appreciation of the facts and circumstances is not called for while deciding the bail application. No doubt there is delay of two days in lodgment of FIR, but it is explained in FIR itself. Delay in lodgment of FIR even otherwise could hardly be resolved by this Court at this stage. The parties were known to each other therefore, the identity of the culprits by the complainant party under the light of bulb could hardly be doubted at this stage. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence with which he is charged.

7. In view of the above, it could be concluded safely that no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed. However, the applicant is put at liberty to repeat the same after recording evidence of the complainant and his witnesses.

8. Needless to state that the observations made above are tentative in nature same may not affect the case of either of the party at trial.

Judge

ARBROHI