ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 663 of 2020.

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 129 of 2021.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

03.05.2021.

            Mr. Naushad Ali Tagar, Advocate for applicant in Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 663 of 2020.

            Mr. Ghulam Rasool M. Narejo, Advocate for applicant in Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 129/2021.

            Mr. Abdul Hakeem Brohi, Advocate for complainant.

            Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General.

~~~~~~~

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:        This common order would dispose of captioned two bail applications, as the same are arisen out of one and same case/ crime i.e. F.I.R No.62/2020 registered at Police-station Naudero (District Larkana), for offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337-H (2), 504 P.P.C. The Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 663 of 2020 has been filed on behalf of applicant Sohbat Ali Mangnejo and Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 129 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of applicant Ghulam Mustafa Mangnejo. Earlier their bail plea was dismissed by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, vide orders dated 26.09.2020 and 15.2.2021, respectively.

            The allegation against present applicants as per F.I.R lodged by complainant Oshaque Ali Gopang on 17.6.2020 is that they made aerial firing only at the end of the alleged incident. The role of making effective firing is alleged against rest of co-accused, namely, Rafique and others. The motive for the said incident as set-out in the F.I.R is previous dispute between the parties over matrimonial affair.

            Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that, no motive is  attributed to the applicants; that no any active role of making effective fire etc. is assigned to applicants except an aerial firing. Per learned counsel, in these circumstances, the question of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of present applicants with co-accused would be determined at the time of trial. Learned counsel for applicant Sohbat further added that applicant Sohbat is behind bars since last ten months and not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. In support of their contentions the learned counsel relied upon case of Niaz Ali Shah v. The State and another (2015 P.Cr.L.J 766 Lahore), Muhammad Tanveer v. The State through Anees-ul-Afreen (2014 P.Cr.L.J 1096 Islamabad) Muhammad Naveed v. The State (2014 P.Cr.L.J 1548 (Sindh) and Abdul Rehman v. Javed and 2 others (2002 SCMR 1415).

            Conversely, learned Advocate for the complainant opposed grant of bail in favor of applicants on the ground that applicants have been nominated in promptly lodged F.I.R with their names and parentage duly armed with deadly weapon with role of making aerial firing in order to create harassment thereby facilitating the principal accused, who committed murder of an innocent person and caused multiple injuries to two witnesses, as such they are vicariously liable for the entire episode. He further added that there is recovery of pistol from applicant Sohbat and also recovery of empties from place of vardat and a report in respect of such empties is in positive.

            Learned D.P.G. appearing for the State also opposed grant of bail to applicants mostly on same grounds as agitated by learned Advocate for the complainant. He however placed his reliance upon case of Saeed Ahmad and another v. The State and another (2014 P.Cr.L.J 133) and Sohail Ahmed v. The State (2000 P.Cr.L.J 235).

No doubt, the applicants have been nominated in the F.I.R, but no specific role of making any effective fire upon any of the member of complainant party including deceased is assigned to them; they are alleged to have made an aerial firing only at the end of alleged incident, and the motive is also not attributed to the present applicants.  Those were co-accused Rafique, Ghulam Hussain, Yaseen and Sajjad who are alleged to have fired at deceased Ghulam Sarwar (the brother of complainant), whereas co-accused Azhar is alleged to have made pistol shot at PW Mushtaq Ahmed (the father of complainant) and co-accused Shameem is alleged to have made pistol shot at PW Bakhat Ali. As such, question of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of the applicants with principal accused would be determined at trial.

            The facts of cases cited by the learned counsel for applicants i.e. Niaz Ali Shah v. The State and another (2015 P.Cr.L.J 766 Lahore), Muhammad Tanveer v. The State through Anees-ul-Afreen (2014 P.Cr.L.J 1096 Islamabad), Muhammad Naveed v. The State (2014 P.Cr.L.J 1548 (Sindh), and case of Abdul Rehman v. Javed and 2 others (2002 SCMR 1415), are very much applicable to the instant case. Perusal of above citations shows that in similar circumstances, the accused persons were extended concession of bail.

            A tentative assessment of all the above factors and the material available on record makes the case of applicants one of further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, these bail applications stand allowed. The applicants Sohbat Ali and Ghulam Mustafa are admitted to bail upon their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One hundred thousand rupees) each and P.R bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

            Needless, to mention that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice case of either party at trial.

                                                Judge

Ansari