IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail
Application No.S-172 of 2021
Applicant: Ali
Asghar Channa, through
Mr.
Saifuddin Laghari, Advocate
Complainant: Nemo
State: Through Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo
Deputy Prosecutor
General.
Date
of hearing: 24-09-2021
Date
of Decision: 24-09-2021
O R D E R
ZULFIQAR
ALI SANGI, J.-
Through captioned bail application, applicant Ali Asghar
son of Muhammad Sukhiyal Channa,
seeks his post-arrest bail in Crime No.119/2016, registered at Police Station Pir Wassan District Khairpur, for the offences u/s 302, 324, 114, and 34 PPC.
2.
The allegations against the
applicant/accused is that he along with co-accused entered into the house of
complainant and on the instigation of co-accused fired from his gun upon Abdul
Rahim which hit him who later on succumbed to injuries and passed away. The
motive behind the occurrence is enmity over landed property.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed
this application mainly on the ground of hardship as well as on merits and has
contended that earlier bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed as
not pressed with direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial
within two months but learned trial court could not conclude the trial within
stipulated period as such the applicant is entitled for concession of bail who
is behind bars for four years. He also
submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to
enmity over landed property. He further contended that all the PWs are
relatives of the complainant and no independent witnesses is
cited in the FIR. He further submitted that co-accused Rahim Bux and Abdul Ghaffar have
already been granted bail therefore on the rule of consistency the applicant is
also entitled for concession of bail.
4.
Learned D.P.G has opposed the grant of
bail and contended that non-compliance of such direction by the trial court may
not entitle the accused to claim bail as of right. He in support of his
contention placed his reliance on the case of Talat Ishaq v. National Accountability Bureau
through Chairman and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 112). He further
submitted that applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role and offence
falls within prohibitory clause, which carries capital punishment.
5.
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.
6.
Record reflects that earlier bail
application of the applicant bearing BA No.S-506/2020 was dismissed as not
pressed on 05.11.2020, issuing directions to the trial court to conclude the
trial within a period of two months. However, such directions were not complied
with by the trial court within stipulated period. Such direction is an
administrative direction and non-compliance of such a direction by the trial
court for whatever reasons may not entitle the accused person to claim bail as
of right. In this regard I am forfeited with the case of Talat Ishaq (supra) referred by learned DPG. So far the merits is concerned, in the report
called from the trial court it is mentioned that the case is at the verge of
conclusion and the evidence of only Tapedar is
remaining to be recorded. Therefore, at this stage when the trial is on
completion, discussion of merits may cause prejudice to the case of either
party. In the case of Muhammad Nawaz v The State (2002 SCMR
1381) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while declining the bail in such situation has observed
as under:
“…… Since the trial is likely to be concluded
in the near future, as such, we are deliberately not attending the merits of
the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party. In this view of the
matter, we are not inclined to grant the concession of post-arrest bail to the
petitioner at this stage……..”
7.
In these circumstances, instant criminal
bail application is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to complete
the trial within shortest reasonable period of time.
JUDGE
Suleman
Khan/PA