ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-309 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

17.09.2020

Mr.Faiz Muhammad Larik, Advocate for the applicants

                        Mr. Abdul Waheed Khushik, Advocate for complainant

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

                        ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Rashid Ali, by causing him fire shot injures, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicants on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 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 complainant party in order to satisfy their matrimonial dispute with them; co-accused Sudheer Ali and Irfan at the time of incident were at Saudi Arabia; there is no independent witness to the incident; the complainant and his witnesses being related inter-se could not be believed and the injuries sustained by the deceased attributed to the applicants have not been found to be cause of death of the deceased; therefore, the applicants according to him are entitled to grant of bail on point of further inquiry.

4.        It is contended by learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant that the applicants have committed murder of an innocent young man in very brutal manner and on arrest from them have been secured the crime weapons, which have been found matched with two of the empties secured from the place of incident and no travel history of co-accused Sudheer Ali and Irfan have been brought on record. By contending so, they have sought for dismissal of the instant bail application.

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

6.        The applicants are named in the FIR with specific allegation that they with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Rashid Ali, by causing him fire shot injuries. The fire shot injuries sustained by the deceased near to his left ear are attributed to the applicants specifically. On arrest from the applicants have been secured the crime weapons and those have been found similar with two empties, secured from the place of incident. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant only to satisfy its matrimonial dispute with them. The matrimonial dispute between the parties may be there, but it may not be a reason to involve the applicants in this case falsely at the cost of a innocent young man. The production of copies of passports of co-accused Sudheer Ali and Irfan, in absence of their travel history is not enough to make a conclusion that they on the date of incident were at Saudi Arabia and such fact even otherwise has got no bearing on the case of applicants. The vicarious liability on the part of applicants is very much evident, therefore, It would be immaterial to say that the fire shot injuries sustained by the deceased near to his left ear attributed to the applicants are not found to be cause of his death. The complainant and PWs may be related inter-se but their relationship is not enough to disbelieve them at this stage. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are guilty of the offence for which they are charged.

7.                    Based upon above discussion, it could be concluded safely that no case for grant of bail to the applicants is made out. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed.

                               J U D G E