IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S-502 of 2021

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

1. For Orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of bail application.

O R D E R.

10-01-2022.

Mr. Liaquat Ali Malano, advocates for the applicant.

Mr. Anwar Ali Lohar, advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, APG for the State.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through the instant Crl. Bail Application, applicant/accused Abdullah Chachar seeks post arrest bail in Crime No. 46/2020, offence u/s 302, 109, 34 PPC of PS Adilpur. Prior to this, he filed the same before the Court of learned Sessions Judge Ghotki, but the same was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC Ubauro, who dismissed the same vide order dated 11-08-2021, hence he filed instant Crl. Bail Application.

2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives and previous enmity over the landed property, which is admitted by the complainant in the FIR; that mere presence of the applicant/accused being armed with pistol is shown by the complainant in the FIR and no overt act is attributed against him by the complainant; that it is yet to be determined at the time of trial as to whether the applicant along with co-accused has share his common intention in the commission of offence, therefore, he pray for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.

4. On the other hand, learned APG for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed for the grant of bail to the applicant/accused on the ground that he being armed with pistol has share the common intention with co-accused in the commission of murder of deceased Saifullah, therefore he is not entitled for the concession of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

6. Perusal of FIR reveals that mere presence of the applicant being armed with pistol is shown by the complainant, otherwise no specific role of causing any injury to deceased is assigned to him nor did he use the pistol in the commission of the offence. In the case of Qurban Ali Vs. The State (2017 SCMR 279), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has granted bail to the accused, who had not been attributed any overt act during the occurrence, except the role of raising “Lalkara” and further held that in such circumstances, trial Court had to determined, after recording pro and contra evidence, whether the applicants were vicariously liable for the act of their co-accused and that case was one of the further enquiry. Further learned counsel for the applicant pleaded malafide on the part of complainant that due to previously enmity the present applicant is booked in this case. At bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made. The case has been challaned and the applicant/accused is in jail and he is no more required for further inquiry. In the unreported case of Jahanzeb Khan Vs. The State through A.G KPK and others Criminal Petition No.594/2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that;

“4.....Petitioner’s continue detention is not likely to improve upon investigative process, already concluded, thus, he cannot be held behind the bars as a strategy for punishment. A case for petitions’ release on bail stand made out.

7. In view of above discussion, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out a good case for grant of bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC, hence the instant bail application is allowed, applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing their solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to satisfaction of learned trial Court. If applicant/accused misuses the concession of bail, then trial Court is at liberty to take action against him. Trial Court is also directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within stipulated period.

8. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits.

J U D G E

Nasim/P.A