ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S- 560 of 2020

For hearing of bail application

05-04-2021.

Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bhatt, advocate for the applicants.

Complainant Muneer Ahmed in person.

Mr. Syed Sardar Ali Shar Rizvi, DPG for the State.

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J; It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object committed murder of Zamir Ahmed by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by making fires in air to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khairpur, have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application under Section 498-A 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 in order to satisfy its old enmity with them; the FIR of the incident has been lodged by the complainant with delay of about one day; there is conflict between medical ocular evidence with regard to the number of injuries sustained by the deceased; there is general allegation of the incident and complainant and his witnesses are related inter-se, therefore the applicants are entitled for grant of pre arrest bail as they are apprehending their unjustified arrest at the hands of the police.

4. Learned DPG for the State who is assisted by the complainant has opposed to the grant of pre arrest bail to the applicants by rebutting the above contention by contending that they have actively participated in commission of incident by causing fire shot injuries to the deceased.

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

6. The applicants are named in the FIR with specific allegation that they with rest of the culprits went over to the complainant party and then in prosecution of their common object, committed murder of the deceased by causing him fire shot injuries. The specific role of causing fire shot injuries to the deceased on lower part of his body is attributed to the applicants. 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 enmity between the parties may be there, but this may not be a reason to involve the applicants in this case falsely at the cost of life of innocent person. The delay in lodgment of FIR by one day is explained in FIR itself, such delay even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. Apparently there is no conflict between medical and ocular evidence with regard to the number of injuries sustained by the deceased. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed to be so; even then such conflict could not be resolved by this Court simply for the reason that the deeper appreciation of facts and circumstances is not permissible at bail stage. The complainant and his witnesses may be related inter-se, but their relationship is not enough to disbelieve them at this stage only to make a case for grant of bail to the applicants. They are natural witnesses to the incident. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are guilty of the offence with which they are charged.

7. In view of above, it is concluded that no case for grant of pre arrest bail to the applicants is made out, consequently, the instant application for pre arrest bail is dismissed with direction to learned trial Court to dispose of the very case within three months, after receipt of copy of this Order, positively.

8. The observations recorded above are tentative in nature; same may not affect the case of either of the party at trial.

Judge

Nasim/Steno.