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 2nd
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