IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Bail Application No. S- 393 of 2021
Applicant :
Ashique s/o Ghulam Qadir Malik,
through Mr. Achar Khan Gabol, advocate
Complainant : Haji Muhammad Qasim s/o Khan Muhammad
Mirani, through Mr. Wazir Ahmed Ghoto, advocate
Respondent : The
State, through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy Prosecutor General
Date
of hearing : 13.09.2021
Date of order :
13.09.2021
--------------
ORDER
--------------
ZAFAR
AHMED RAJPUT, J.- Applicant/accused Ashique s/o Ghulam
Qadir Malik being
abortive to get the concession of post-arrest bail from the Court of 1st
Additional Sessions Judge-1(MCTC), Ghotki in Sessions Case No. 172 of 2021,
vide order dated 04.06.2021, through this application seeks the same concession
from this Court in Crime/FIR No. 28 of 2021, registered under sections 302, 311,
114, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. at Police Station A- Section, Ghotki.
2. It is alleged that on 10.02.2021, at
about 0800 hours, present applicant, along with co-accused Muhammad Bux @
Keero, Muhammad Aslam, Irfan and one unidentified accused, duly armed with
pistols, having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object
of such assembly, intercepted the complainant Haji Muhammad Qasim Mirani and
PWs, and on the instigation of applicant, co-accused Muhammad Bux committed
qatl-i- amd of his nephew Akbar Ali, 30/32, by causing fire shot injury to him
under the pretext of “Karap”., for which, the accused were
booked in the instant case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has
mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated
in this case; that
there is no independent witness of the incident while place of incident has
been shown in a busy public area; that the role attributed to
applicant is that of instigator while the alleged motive is against the
co-accused Muhammad Bux; that the allegations
against the applicant are absurd and baseless and no reasonable grounds exists
to believe that he has committed the alleged offence; as such, he is entitled
for the concession of bail on the ground of further inquiry.
4. Per contra, learned counsel
for the complainant has vehemently opposed the instant application on the grounds
that the applicant is nominated in the FIR by name and on his instigation,
co-accused Muhammad Bux committed qatl-i- amd of deceased; that all the PWs
have fully implicated the applicant with the commission of alleged offence in
their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.; that the alleged offence
falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C and since no case of
further inquiry has been made out, the applicant is not entitled for the
concession of bail.
5. The learned D.P.G. has adopted the
arguments of learned counsel for the complainant.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant,
complainant, D.P.G and perused the material available on record with their
assistance.
7. The applicant was arrested on 11.02.2021 and since
then he is confined in judicial custody and since police has submitted the
challan, he is no more required for further investigation. The contents of the FIR are indicative of the fact that the
applicant, being a member of an unlawful assembly, was present at the occurrence
duly armed with pistol; however, he did not fire even a single shot. Motive of
the murder, as per complainant, was contracting of court marriage of the
deceased with a lady, namely, Mst. Zeenat d/o Imamuddin Malik but the
complainant has not alleged anywhere the anger of the applicant, as such, prima
facie, the applicant had no motive to take part in the occurrence. The
allegation against the applicant is that he instigated co-accused Muhammad Bux
for the commission of alleged murder of deceased Akbar Ali; Hence, the question
of vicarious liability of the applicant with regard to the commonness of his
intention for committing alleged offence under the circumstances will be
determined at the trial. In the circumstances of the case mentioned above, I
have found the case against the accused one of further inquiry into his guilt,
as envisaged under subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr. P.C. Accordingly, the
accused is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum
of Rs.300,000/- (Rupees Three Hundred Thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. Needless to mention here
that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not
influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant/accused on
merits. However, in case the applicant misuses
the concession of bail in any manner, the trial Court shall be at liberty to
cancel the same after giving him notice, in accordance with law.
JUDGE