ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr. Misc. Appln. No. S-117 of 2020

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

 

For hearing of main case.

17-08-2020

 

Mr. Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Ghulam Shabir Jatoi, Advocate for private respondents.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, A.P.G. 

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

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the private respondents with rest of culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by making trespass in to house of deceased Muhammad Usman, committed his murder by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by making fires in air to create harassment, for that the present case was registered. At trial, the private respondents were admitted to bail by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, one after other, which the applicant has sought to be cancelled by way of instant application under section 497 (5) Cr.PC.

2.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondents are named in the FIR and they are vicariously liable for commission of the incident, therefore, they were not entitled to have been released on bail by learned trial Court. By contending so, he sought for cancellation of bail granted to the private respondents.

3.                Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents have sought for dismissal of instant Crl.Misc.Application by contending that neither the private respondents have taken active part in commission of the incident nor they have misused the concession of bail.

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

5.                Admittedly, the role attributed to the private respondents in commission of the incident is only to the extent of instigation and/or aerial firing. The parties are already disputed over rotation of water. In that situation, the involvement of the private respondents in commission of the incident obviously is calling for further inquiry, they indeed have rightly been admitted to bail by learned trial Court and such concession apparently they have not misused, which may make them disentitled to enjoy the same.

6.                In case of Meeran Bux vs.The State and another           (PLD 1989 SC-347), it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that;

“Accused remained on bail for more than one year without abusing the concession in any manner before the bail was cancelled by the High Court---Order of High Court cancelling pre-arrest bail granted to accused was set aside by the Supreme Court in circumstances”

7.                In view of above, it could be concluded safely that no case for cancellation of bail to the private respondents is made out. Consequently, the instant Crl.Misc.Application is dismissed.

 

                                                                                             J U D G E