ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail. Application No.S-611 of 2020.

Crl. Bail Application No.S-647 of 2020.

1. For Orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of bail application

29-03-2021.

M/s Irshad Hussain Dharejo and Syed Murad Ali Shah advocates for the applicants.

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional Prosecutor General for the State.

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- The facts in brief for disposal of instant Bail Applications are that deceased Aziz Ahmed was journalist, on the fateful day he with his cameraman was taken away by unknown culprits, he did not return, subsequently his dead body was found lying in a minor; the incident was report to police, on investigation the applicants were found connected with the incident and were accordingly booked.

2. The applicants by making separate applications u/s 497 Cr.P.C sought for their release on bail, those were dismissed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge Naushahro Feroze, now they have sought for their release on bail from this Court by way of making instant bail applications under Section 497 Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about three days; the names of the applicants are not appearing in the FIR and they have been involved in the commission of incident on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Nazeer Ahmed, therefore, their case is calling for further inquiry, which is making them entitled to be released on bail. In support of their contention, they have relied upon cases of Arif Nawaz Khan and 3 others Vs. The State (PLD 1991 Federal Shariat Court 53), Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq Vs. The State (1992 P.Cr.L.J 1910) and Asfand Yar Khan and another Vs. The State (2020 SCMR 715).

4. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in commission of incident and beside confessional statement of co-accused Nazeer Ahmed, they have also been involved in commission of incident by PW Pir Bux. In support of their contention, they have relied upon case of Muhammad Iqbal Vs. The State (1990 SCMR 319), Mamaras Vs. The State and others (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 385) and Raja Muhammad Irshad Vs. Muhammad Bashir Goraya and others (2006 SCMR 1292).

5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6. No doubt the FIR of the incident has been lodged with the delay of about three days, but such delay is explained in FIR itself. The delay in lodgment of FIR even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. Non disclosure of the names of the applicants in FIR prima-facie suggests that the complainant party was having no ill will to involve the applicants in commission of incident falsely. The applicants obviously have been involved in the commission of incident by co-accused Nazeer Ahmed by making his confessional statement and it takes support from 161/164 Cr.P.C statement of PW Pir Bux. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. The deceased was a journalist and he it is said has been killed for making fair reports. The deeper appreciation of facts and circumstances even otherwise is not permissible at bail stage. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are guilty of offence, with which they charged.

7. The case law, which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. Case of Arif Nawaz Khan (supra) is relating to hearing of an appeal against conviction. In the instant matter, no conviction is recorded. In case of Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq (supra) accused was admitted to bail simply for the reason that he has been involved in commission of by co-accused by way of making confessional statement. In the instant matter beside confession of co-accused, the applicants are also involved in commission of incident by PW Pir Bux. In case of Asfand Yar Khan and others (supra) the accused were admitted to bail for the reason that they were implicated in commission of incident through supplementary statement. In the instant matter, no supplementary statement is made by the complainant.

8. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, it could be concluded safely that the applicants/accused are not found entitled to be released on bail. Consequently, their bail applications are dismissed with direction to learned trial Court to dispose of the very case within three months after receipt of copy of this Order.

Judge

Nasim/Steno.