ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail Application No.S-750 of 2020
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
For
hearing of bail application
Dated
of hearing: 04.03.2021
Mr. Saeed Jamal Lund, Advocate for the
applicants/accused
Mr. Asif Ali Jatoi, Advocate for complainant
Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Addl. P.G
O R D E R
Nazar Akbar,J: Through instant bail application, applicants/accused
Muhammad Hassan @ Hasoo, Afroz, Fida Hussain and Imtiaz, seek post-arrest bail, in Crime No.76/2019,
registered at Police Station Babarloi, under sections 302, 148, 149, PPC. The
post-arrest bail plea of applicants/accused has been declined by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Khairpur , vide order dated 30.11.2020.
2. The
allegations against the applicants/accused is that they along with an unknown
culprit have committed the murder of Lal Bux, the uncle of complainant Gamon in
a katcha/forest by throattling him with a wire.
3. Learned
counsel for the applicants/accused has contended that there is delay of five days in lodging of FIR,
which has not been plausibly explained; that
the source of identification was light of torch, which has not been shown as
case property in the challan sheet; that that there are general allegations
against the applicants/accused and no
specific role has been assigned to them; that applicant/accused Hasoo Machi is
an old age person having age more than 70 years who is not in condition to move
or talk properly; that nothing has been recovered by police from place of
incident even torch has not been produced by the complainant before police. Learned counsel for the applicants in support
of his contentions relied on the case law reported as 2010 SCMR 1972, 2017
P.Cr.L.J 1092 [Lahore] and 2019 YLR 2185 [Sindh Sukkur Bench].
4. Learned
Addl. P.G and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail plea contending that the applicants/accused have been nominated in
the FIR with specific role and a human
being has lost his life in the incident and offence falls within prohibitory
clause of section 497Cr.P.C.
5. I
have given due consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the record.
6.
As per contents of FIR, the complainant
and PWs went to jungle to search deceased who was missing and allegedly at
about 8.00 p.m, saw the applicants/accused
on torch light throattling the deceased, which is a very week type of source
of identification and even the said torch
has not been shown as case property. Admittedly, there are general allegations
against the applicants, as well as there is delay of about five days in lodging
of FIR for which no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant,
hence possibility of consultation before registration of FIR could not be ruled
out. Besides this, during investigation applicants/accused were found innocent
and I.O recommended the case for disposal under false ‘B’ class. In these
circumstances the case of applicants/accused calls for further enquiry and the
applicants/accused have successfully made out a case for post-arrest bail.
Therefore, the applicants/accused are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to
furnishing solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (rupees one hundred
thousand) each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court.
7. Needless
to state that observations made here-in-above are tentative in nature and will
not cause prejudice to the case of either party at the time of final decision
of subject sessions case.
JUDGE
Suleman Khan/PA