ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-189 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

29.11.2021

                        Mr. Shahbaz Ali Brohi, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, Asstt. Prosecutor General for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

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 murder of Abdul Hameed by causing him fire shot injuries, for that the present case was registered.

                        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.PC.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant; the parties are already disputed over matrimonial affairs and no active role in commission of the incident is attributed to the applicant, therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of post-arrest bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contentions, he relied upon case of Qurban Ali Vs. The State and others (2017 SCMR-279).

                        Learned Assistant Prosecutor General for the State has opposed to grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that the applicant is vicariously liable for the commission of incident.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about eight hours and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. No active role in commission of the incident is attributed to the applicant. Whether the applicant actually participated in commission of the incident? It requires determination at trial. The parties are already disputed over matrimonial affairs. The case has finally been challaned. There is no apprehension of tampering with the incident on the part of applicant. In these circumstances, the applicant is found entitled to grant of post-arrest bail as his case is calling for further inquiry.

                        In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.200,000/-and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

                        The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.     

                                                                                                   J U D G E