IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Bail Application No. S-519 of 2021
Applicant :
Imamuddin s/o Qaiser Bullo,
through
Mr. Anwer Ali Lohar,
advocate
Complainant : Imamuddin s/o Daraz Khan Bullo,
through Mr. Aijaz Ahmed 1.
Puno, advocate
Respondent : The
State, through Mr. Sardar Ali Shah,
Deputy Prosecutor General,
Sindh
Date
of hearing : 23.09.2021
Date of order :
23.09.2021
--------------
ORDER
--------------
ZAFAR
AHMED RAJPUT, J.- Applicant/accused Imamuddin
Bullo on being unsuccessful in
getting the concession of post-arrest bail from the Court of I-Additional
Sessions Judge-1, (MCTC), Ghotki in Sessions Case No. 243 of 2020, vide order
dated 13.03.2021, through the instant application seeks the same concession
from this Court in Crime/FIR No. 46 of 2020, registered under sections 302,
147, 148, 149, P.P.C. at Police Station “B”-Section, Ghotki.
2. As per FIR, on 13.09.2020 at about 01:30
a.m., present applicant, along with co-accused Qadirdad @ Abdul Qadeer Bullo,
Abdul Hayee Bullo and two unidentified accused persons, duly armed with guns,
having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of such
assembly, the applicant and co-accused Qadirdad committed qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim, 22, an army man and the nephew of the
complainant, by causing guns shots/injury to him, for which, the accused were
booked in the instant case. Motive behind the alleged murder was annoyance of
the accused party at the deceased, as he forbade them from sitting in front of his
house one day before the alleged incident.
3. After
hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, complainant, D.P.G and perusing
the material available on record with their assistance, it appears that the
applicant is nominated in the FIR by name with specific role of causing gunshot
injury to the deceased on his abdomen through and through. The applicant is the
neighbor of the complainant party; hence, there would hardly be any element of
mistaken identification even in the odd hours. The ocular account is fully
supported with medical evidence. Enmity between the parties is an admitted
fact. Besides the complainant, there are two other eye-witnesses who have fully
connected the applicant with commission of alleged offence, which falls within
the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.C.
4. Much stress has been given by the
learned counsel for the applicant on nineteen hours delay in lodgment of FIR. It
has been stated in the FIR that after the incident, the injured was taken to
Pano Aqil Cantonment for treatment where he succumbed to his injuries,
thereafter, his dead body was brought at Taluka Hospital Ghotki where
post-mortem was conducted and after performing funeral ceremony, the
complainant lodged the FIR; hence, plausible explanation prima facie is
available on record for the alleged delay. Even otherwise, delay in lodging FIR
is not ipso facto a ground for the
grant of bail.
5. From the tentative assessment of the
evidence in hands of prosecution, I am of the view that prima-facie sufficient
evidence is available against the applicant to connect him with the commission
of alleged offence, carrying punishment for death and imprisonment for life.
Every hypothetical question which could be imagined would not make it a case of
further enquiry simply for the reason that it could be answered by the trial
Court subsequently after evaluation of evidence.
6. As a result of
above discussion, the instant application is dismissed. The above observations
are tentative in nature for the disposal of bail application and shall not
influence the trial Court while deciding the case on merits.
JUDGE