IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 242 of 2021.

 

Applicant:                 Ameer Bux alias LuqooBangwar, throughMr.Khadim Hussain Khoso, Advocate.

 

The State:                  Through, Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General.

 

Complainant:            Ghulam Yasin, through Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate.

 

Date of hearing:        19.07.2021.

Date of order:           26.07.2021.

 

O R D E R

 

Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J: Applicant Ameer Bux alias Luqoo Bangwar seeks indulgence of this court against the order dated 05.05.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, whereby post-arrest bail was denied to him in case/ FIR No.60 dated 05.06.2019, registered at Police Station Buxapur, District Kashmore @ Kandhkot, for offenses under Sections 302, 324,   337-A (i) 337F (i), 114, 147, 148, PPC.

 

2.         The case set out in the crime report (FIR), briefly stated, is that on 04.6.2019 at about 6.30 evening, the applicant along with his accomplices caused lathi blows to the father of complainant on his head and also caused injuries to the witnesses. The father of the complainant, namely, Shah Muhammad alias Shan Muhammad succumbed to the injuries and died, as a result, whereof the complainant lodged FIR No.60 of 2019 at Police Station Buxapur District Kashmore @ Kandhkot for offenses under Sections 302, 324,   337-A (i) 337-F (i), 114, 147, 148, PPC. The applicant was arrested in the above crime, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with his arrest filed Bail Application No.242 of 2021 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, whereby post-arrest bail was denied to him vide order dated 05.05.2021. He has now approached this court for the said relief on the ground that, he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by complainant; that there is a dispute between the parties over the demarcation of agricultural land; that all the PWs are close relatives; that injury attributed to applicant is not mentioned in the postmortem of deceased, nor mashirnama of injuries; that co-accused Illauddin has already granted bail by learned trial Court.

 

3.         After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the tentative assessment of the record reveals the following position:

 

i)         That the occurrence, in this case, had been reported to the police promptly.

 

ii)        In the FIR the applicant had specifically been nominated as one of the perpetrators of the alleged murder of Shah Muhammad alias Shan Muhammad which he received on his head.

 

iii)       Applicant has been attributed lathi injury to the deceased on his head.

 

iv)       Prima-facie, post-mortem Examination Report of deceased Shah Muhammad alias Shan Muhammad lends sufficient support to the allegation leveled against the applicant.

 

v)         The eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the applicant in the murder in the issue.

 

vi)       Offense under sections 302 P.P.C. attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

 

viii)     There is the recovery of crime weapon i.e. lathi from the applicant.

 

4.         Prima facie the contention raised by the defense counsel requires a deeper appreciation of the evidence, which is not required in this case. However, the tentative assessment of record as discussed supra prima facie suggest that the implication of the applicant in the aforesaid crime could only be thrashed out by the learned trial Court after recording evidence, and this court at this point not in a position to see pro and contra of the case at the bail stage. Therefore, the case of the applicant needs to be looked into by the learned trial court in its true perspective after the recording of the evidence.

 

5.         In view of the above facts & discussion, the instant bail application is dismissed.  However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within three months and report compliance to this court through the Additional Registrar of this Court.

 

6.         The observation made hereinabove is tentative, which shall not prejudice either party at trial.

 

                                                        JUDGE