ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-428 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

09.12.2021

                        Ms. Rizwana Jabeen Siddiqui, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. 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 Abdullah by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by making fires at the complainant and his witnesses, with intention to commit their murder and in air to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

                        The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail 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 party on account of previous enmity; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day that too after preliminary inquiry; the roznamcha entries relating to the incident do not contain name of the applicant; the case has finally been challaned; therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of post-arrest bail on point of further inquiry. In support of her contention, she relied upon cases of Faqir Muhammad and others Vs. The State (2007 MLD-340) and Kouro and others Vs. The State (2004 YLR-2434).

                        Learned Assistant Prosecutor General for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that co-accused Sobdar with utmost similar role has already been refused bail by this Court.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The name of the applicant is appearing in FIR with specific allegation that he caused fire shot injury to deceased Abdullah at his left flank. Whatever is stated in FIR takes support from the ancillary evidence. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant on account of previous enmity. The enmity between the parties may be there, but it may not be a reason to involve the applicant in this case falsely at the cost of life of an innocent person. The delay in lodgment of the FIR is explained in FIR itself, the same even otherwise could not be resolved in favour of the applicant at this stage. No benefit could be extended to the applicant at this stage only for the reason that his name is not appearing in roznamcha entries, simply for the reason that those were kept in roznamcha by the police of its own on receipt of telephonic message with regard to the incident from different persons. Co-accused Sobdar with similar role has already been denied concession of bail by this Court and such order could not be overlooked. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence with which he          is charged.

                        The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In case of Faqir Muhammad (supra), the accused was admitted to bail mainly for the reason that none seen him causing fire shot injuries to the deceased. In the instant case, the applicant has been seen causing fire shot injury to the deceased. In case of Kouro and others (supra), the main reason for grant of bail to the accused was that there was no evidence which could have suggested that the deceased was done to death by them and they were involved in case after due deliberation and preliminary investigation. In the instant case, the delay in lodgment of the FIR is explained and preliminary investigation of the case,           if any, was formal in nature.  

                        In view of above, it could be concluded safely that no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed.     

                                                                                                   J U D G E