ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-414 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

05.10.2020

Mr. Abid Hussain Qadri, Advocate for the applicant

                        Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

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

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 Ghulam Nabi by causing him butt blows and pressing his testis, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Shikarpur, 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 its dispute with him over the landed property; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day; the very case on investigation was recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” class; co-accused Ali Mardan has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court and as per postmortem report, the death of the deceased was natural one. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further enquiry and consistency. 

4.        Learned D.P.G. for the State has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant.

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

6.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The death of the deceased as per postmortem report was natural one and the very case on investigation was recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” class.             Co-accused Ali Mardan with utmost similar role has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court. In that situation, the applicant could hardly be denied the concession of bail on point of absconsion alone.

7.                In case of Mitho Pitafi vs. The State (2009 SCMR-299), it has been by the Honourable Apex Court that;

“Bail, grant of---Co-accused was released on bail by the Trial Court, but the concession of bail was declined to the accused petitioner on the ground that he was fugitive from law---High Court as well as the Trial Court had rejected the bail of petitioner on account of his absconsion and not on merits---Validity---Bail could be granted, if accused had good case for bail on merits and mere his absconsion would not come in the way while granting him bail---High Court had not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective while declining bail to the petitioner”.

8.                    In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

9.                    The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                               J U D G E