ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-305 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

24.09.2020

Mr. Muzafar Ali Wadho, Advocate for the applicant

                        Mr. Taha Rehman Jatoi, Advocate for the complainant

                        Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

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

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that  the applicant with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, committed       Qatl-e-Amd of Sajjan Mal, by causing him fire shot injuries, only to satisfy their dispute with him over leadership of “Panchayat”, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 498-A 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 its dispute with him over leadership of “Panchayat”; no specific injury to the deceased is attributed to the applicant; the applicant was not available at the time and place of the incident; the innocence of the applicant is also proved of affidavit of the complainant which she has filed before learned trial Court; co-accused Srichand has already been admitted to bail and there is no independent witness to the incident. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of malafide and further enquiry.

4.        Learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident by causing fire shot injuries to the deceased and the role attributed to co-accused Srichand in commission of the incident is distinguishable to that of the applicant.

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

6.        Name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that he with rest of the culprits went over to the deceased and then in furtherance of their common intention in order to satisfy their dispute with him over leadership of “Panchayat”, committed his murder by causing him fire shot injures. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. The firing was indiscriminate, therefore, it would be unjustified to exclude the applicant from liability of the incident on the ground that no specific injury to the deceased is attributed to him. Co-accused Srichand obviously is having distinguishable role to that of the applicant. There is nothing in affidavit of the complainant which may declare the applicant to be innocent. The plea of “Alibi” could not be resolved by this Court at this stage by disbelieving the complainant and her witnesses. There may not be independent witness to the incident but for this reason the complainant and her witnesses could not disbelieved at this stage, they indeed are appearing to be natural witnesses to the incident. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence for which he is charged. No case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed.

7.                    The order whereby the applicant was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail is recalled and vacated.

                    J U D G E