ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

2^nd Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-31 of 2022.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

21.02.2022

                        Mr. Shahbaz Ali Brohi, Advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr. Ghulam Mustafa R. Junejo, Advocate for complainant

                        Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, during course of robbery of cattle, committed murder of Ghulam Nabi by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by making aerial firing 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/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 party; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day and co-accused Suleman and Mohabat have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court, therefore, he is entitled for his release on bail on point of further inquiry and consistency.

                        Learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of post arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident by causing fire shot injury to the deceased; the instant bail application being second in its series is incompetent and co-accused Suleman and Mohabat have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court by way of non speaking order, which they are going to challenge. In support of their contention, they relied upon case of Amir Masih Vs. The State and another (2013 SCMR-1059).

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The applicant is named in FIR with specific allegation that he with rest of the culprits, during robbery of cattle on offering resistance, committed death of the deceased by causing him fire shot injuries. It is case of conjoint liability; therefore, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely. The delay in lodgment of the FIR is explained in FIR itself; the same even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. The applicant after commission of the incident has preferred to go in absconsion for about six years and such long absconsion he has not been able to explain plausibly. Co-accused Suleman and Mohabat have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court by way of non speaking order without taking into consideration the settled principle of law for grant of bail. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence with which he has been charged. No legal justification or to say the fresh ground is advanced by the applicant for having filed the instant bail application being second in series, after withdrawal of his first bail application; consequently, it is dismissed.

                        A notice be issued against co-accused Suleman and Mohabat to show-cause u/s.497 (5) Cr.PC, as to why their bail should not be canceled.              A separate file for the needful to be prepared.  

      JUDGE