IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application No.S-799 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.
07-02-2022.
Mr.
Sardar Akber F.Ujjan, advocate for applicants.
Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, APG for the State.
AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through the instant Application, applicants/accused Aqil
Mahboob, Muhammad Uris and Salman @ Shan all by caste Rajper seek post-arrest
bail in Crime No. 159/2021, offence u/s 452, 302, 109, 34 PPC, registered at
police Station Ranipur, District Khairpur. Prior to this, their bail plea was
dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Gambat vide order dated
08-12-2021, hence instant 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. It is, inter-alia, contended by
the learned counsel for the applicants/accused that applicants/accused are
innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case in order to save the
real culprits; that applicant Aqil Mahboob himself is complainant in the FIR,
but police with malafide intention and ulterior has faslely implicated him and
shown as accused in this case; that accused nominated in the FIR are
influential persons and prevailed upon the police, therefore in order to favour
the real culprits, the police has joined applicant/complainant as accused in
this case, who has nothing to do with the alleged offence; Lastly he prayed
that it is fit case for further enquiry and the applicants/accused are entitled
for concession of bail.
4.
On the other, learned APG for the
State has opposed for grant of bail to the applicants/accused on the ground
that applicants/accused have admitted their guilt in a press conference and
such news was also published in various news papers, therefore sufficient
material is available on record to connect the applicants/accused with
commission of offence, hence they are not entitled for the concession of bail.
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the material available on the record with their
assistance.
6.
From the bare perusal of record, it
appears that applicant Aqil Mahboob is complainant of the FIR and he is also step
son of the deceased Mst. Roshan Mahboob. The deceased was social worker, but
applicant/accused Aqil Mahboob was annoyed upon the social working of deceased.
After registration of FIR a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) was constituted, 161
CrPC statements of independent witnesses Jameel Ahmed, Muhammad Alam and Waheed
Ali, was recorded, who have fully implicated the applicants as accused for the
commission of offence. Applicant Aqil Mahboob, who is also complainant of the
case himself shown presence PWs Kamran Ali and Ali Hyder Rajper at the place of
incident and they have also implicated him in the commission of offence. As per
post mortem report, the deceased was died due to asphyxia as a result of
throttling, therefore sufficient material is available on record to connect the
applicants/accused in this case. Learned A.P.G submits that during press
conference, accused Aqil Mahboob as well as other co-accused persons have
confessed their guilt and disclosed that they have committed the murder of
deceased Mst. Roshan Mahboob. In support of his contention, he has produced USB
in which the statements of the accused persons were recorded. It is well
settled principle of law that at the bail stage only tentative assessment is to
be made. Learned counsel for the applicants has failed to point out any ill
will or malafide on the part of police to falsely involve the applicants/accused
in the commission of offence. It seems that the applicants/accused are involved
in a heinous offence of murder and their case scarily flaws within the
prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.
7.
In view of above discussion, learned
counsel for the applicants/accused has failed to make out a good case for grant
of bail to the applicants/accused in the light of sub section (2) of Section
497 CrPC, therefore, the applicants/accused are not entitled for concession of
bail and same is dismissed accordingly.
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