ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-334 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

21.02.2022

                        Mr. Habib-ur-Rehman Shaikh, Advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr. Atta Hussain Qadri, Advocate for the 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, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of Wakeel Ahmed, by causing him lathi blows, 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 in order to satisfy its matrimonial dispute with him; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about three days and no specific injury to the deceased is attributed to the applicant, therefore, he is entitled for his release on bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contentions, he relied upon case of Jaffar and others Vs. The State (1980 SCMR-784).

                        Learned Addl.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 lathi blows to the deceased.

                        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, in furtherance of their common intention went over to the complainant party and then committed death of the deceased by causing him lathi blows. 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 in order to satisfy its matrimonial dispute with him. 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 is vicariously liable for commission of the incident; therefore, he could not be admitted to bail only for the reason that no specific injury to the deceased is attributed to him. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence, with which he has been charged.

                        The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case there was counter version of the incident.

                        No case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently, the instant criminal bail application is dismissed. However, the same to be repeated by the applicant before learned trial Court after recording evidence of the complainant and medical officer.

      JUDGE