ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S- 232 of 2020

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of bail application

19-06-2020.

Mr. Alam Sher Bozdar Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Farhan Ali Shaikh, Advocate for the complainant

Mr. Abdul Rahman Kolachi, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah-J:- It is alleged that applicants with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention committed Qalt-e-Amd of Ghulam Mohiyuddin by causing him fire shot injuries, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicants on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC Ubauro, have 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 applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the police; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about 06 hours; complainant Mst. Moomal and PW Muhammad Sharif by filing their affidavits have recorded their no objection to grant of bail to the applicants, therefore, the applicants according to him are entitled to grant of bail on point of further inquiry.

4. Learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicants.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The FIR has been lodged with delay of about 06 hours, it has not been explained plausibly, therefore, same could not be lost sight of; The identity of the culprits is based on the light of torch which is weak piece of evidence; Complainant Mst. Moomal and PW Muhammad Sharif now by filing their affidavits have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicants by stating therein that they have implicated the applicants in this case due to some differences. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry.

7. In case of Muhammad Najeeb Vs. The State (2009 SCMR-448), it has been held by Hon’able Apex Court that;

“complainant initially had nominated the accused in the FIR but later-on through an affidavit he has expressed his satisfaction with regard to innocence of the accused, the case of the accused was of further enquiry”.

8. In view of above, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Lac) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

9. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

Judge

Nasim/P.A