IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 785 of 2021

 

Applicants            Wahid Bux alias Wahido alias Budho son of Sukhyal bycaste Shar.

 

                             Through Syed Murad Ali Shah Advocate

 

Complainant        Vinesh Kumar,

                             Through Mr. Muhammad Ali Napar Advocate   

 

Respondent :        The State

                            Through Aftab Ahmed Shar, APG for the State

 

Dated of hearing:           14-02-2022

Date of order :                14-02-2022

O R D E R  

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J – By this order, I intend to dispose of instant post-arrest Crl. Bail Application arising out of Crime No.167 of 2020 registered at Police Station Shaheed Murtaza Mirani, District Khairpur for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B PPC. Prior to this the bail application of the applicant/accused has been declined by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/(MCTC), Khairpur vide order dated 12-10-2021, hence this bail application.

2.       The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, therefore same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application.    

3.       It is, inter-alia, contended by learned counsel for the applicant/accused that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant; that name of the applicant/accused does not transpire in the FIR as it is an unseen incident; co-accused Din Muhammad alias Bhojo and Muzaffar Hussain have been granted bail by this Court; that the case has been challaned and the applicant/accused is no more required for the purpose of further investigation. He lastly prayed that the applicant/accused may be admitted to bail.

4.       Mr. Muhammad Ali Napar advocate files power on behalf of complainant, which is taken on record. Learned APG for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contended that the present applicant/accused is involved in the commission of the offence; that applicant/accused is serial killer and number of cases like murder, robbery, police encounters and armed ordinance are registered against him at different police stations; that the offence with which the applicant/accused is charged entails capital punishment.

5.       I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  Admittedly the present office is unseen and un-witnessed, but he was implicated by the complainant in his further statement. Not only this, but when the applicant/accused was arrested, crime weapon was recovered from his possession and the empties recovered from the place of wardhat were matched and as per FSL report the same were fired from the weapon recovered from his possession. Moreover number of cases like murder, robbery, police encounters and armed ordinance are registered against him at different police stations, which shows that he is a hardened and habitual criminal. Such criminal record of the applicant/accused is also produced by learned counsel for the complainant. The case of applicant/accused is quite different from the case of co-accused, who have been admitted to bail. During investigation, the investigating officer has recorded the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs, who have fully supported the version of the complainant. Sufficient material is available on record to connect the applicant/accused with the commission of offence. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any ill will or malafide on the part of complainant to falsely involve the applicant/accused in the commission of offence. It is well settled principle of law that at the bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made. It seems that the applicant/accused is involved in the heinous offence and his case scarily flaws within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.

7.      In view of above discussion, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has failed to make out a good case for grant of bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC, therefore, the applicant/accused is not entitled for concession of bail and same is dismissed accordingly.  Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the proceedings within 60 days and no adjournment shall be granted to either party. In case learned trial Cout fails to comply with the direction of this Court, the applicant/accused is at liberty to file a fresh bail application on new and available grounds, before the trial Court if so advised. 

8.      Needless, to mention that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.

                                                                                                                                                                              Judge

 

Nasim/P.A