IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail
Application No.S-426 of 2021
Applicants: Muhammad
Amin and others,
through Mr. Shamsuddin N.Kobhar,
Advocate
Complainant: Tariq Ahmed Shahani
through Ms Amber Iqbal
Advocate
State: Through Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo
Deputy Prosecutor
General.
Date
of hearing: 10-09-2021
Date
of Decision: 10-09-2021
O R D E R
ZULFIQAR
ALI SANGI, J.-
Through captioned bail application, applicants Muhammad Amin, Allah Rakhyo, Ali Sher, Gulsher, Farzand and Munawar @
Muhammad Munawar all by caste Shahani, seek
their post-arrest bail in Crime No.49/2021, registered at Police Station Adilpur, for the offences u/s 302, 324, 114, 147, 148 and 149 PPC. Their earlier
bail plea was declined by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC) Ghotki, vide order dated 30.06.2021.
2.
Briefly the facts of the prosecution are that on
the day of incident complainant Tariq Ahmed, his brother Farooq
Ahmed, uncles Muhammad Suleman, Azharuddin,
Rafique Ahmed and Mumtaz
Ali and cousin Abdul Basit were returning home from
their agricultural lands, when they reached at link road village Ali Bux Shahani at about 06.45 p.m, the present accused
Muhammad Ameen, Allah Rakhio,
Ali Sher, Gulsher, Farzand and Munawar armed with lathies
and co-accused Arshad Ali and Hashmat
armed with guns, intercepted them and at the instigation of applicant Muhammad
Amin attacked upon the complainant party during which accused Arshad fired shot with his gun at Farooq
Ahmed which hit him at his stomach, accused Hashmat
caused butt blows on the back of Farooq Ahmed while the present accused caused lathi blows to complainant and PWs on different parts of
their bodies. In the way to hospital the
injured Farooq Ahmed succumbed to injuries and
died. The motive behind the occurrence
is enmity over landed property.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicants has
contended that there is delay of 14 hours and 45 minutes in registration of
F.I.R and the same has not been explained by the complainant; that the F.I.R
was registered with false facts; that
the allegations against the applicants are
of only causing lathi blows to the PWs
and not of causing any injury to the deceased and the injuries
attributed to the present applicants, as per medical certificates carry
punishment up to five years and do not fall within the prohibitory clause of
section 497 Cr.P.C; that the allegation of instigation against applicant
Muhammad Amin requires further enquiry. In support of his contention learned
counsel for the applicants has placed his reliance on the cases of Sajid v. Samin ur Rehman
(deceased) through his father and others
(2021 SCMR 138) and Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State (1996 SCMR 1125).
4.
Learned counsel for the complainant
has contended that the applicants are nominated with specific role in the F.I.R
and they shared common intention in the commission of offence which carries capital
punishment and falls within prohibitory clause; that all the witnesses have supported
the version of the complainant in their 161 C.P.C statements and the medical
evidence is in line with ocular evidence. She has prayed that bail application of
the applicant may be dismissed.
5.
Learned D.P.G. has contended that
there is no contradiction in ocular version and medical evidence and the
medical evidence corroborates the ocular account, therefore, he has also prayed
for rejection of the bail plea of the applicants/accused. He in support of his
contention placed his reliance on the case of Sidra Abbas v. The State and another (2020 SCMR 2089).
6.
I have considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on
the record with their able assistance.
7.
Admittedly the names of the
applicants/accused are mentioned in the F.I.R with specific role of causing
injuries to the complainant and PWs as well as sharing common intention with
co-accused Arshad Ali in committing murder of
deceased Farooq Ahmed; the version given by the
complainant in the FIR was supported by the PWs in their 161 Cr.P.C statements;
the ocular evidence is supported by the medical evidence; the delay in
registration of F.I.R has been properly explained by the complainant in the
F.I.R; recovery of lathies have been effected from
accused Ali Sher and Farzand;
there is sufficient iota of evidence to connect the applicants/accused with the
offence which carries capital punishment and falls within the prohibitory
clause of section 497 Cr.P.C; it is well settled principal of law that the court has to make
tentative assessment while deciding the bail application and deeper
appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage; the case law
referred by the learned counsel for the applicants are based on different facts
and circumstances to the case of present applicants, while the case law
referred by learned DPG supports the case of complainant.
8.
In these circumstances; I am of the
considered view that the applicants have failed to make out their case for
grant of post-arrest bail. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application
stands dismissed.
9.
The observations made hereinabove are
tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail
application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court
at the time of final decision of the subject case.
JUDGE
Suleman
Khan/PA