ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 586 of 2022.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

15.12.2022.

1.         For orders on office objections.

2.         For hearing of bail application.

            Mr. Mujahid Ali Jatoi, Advocate for applicant.

            Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

~~~~~~~

Amjad Ali Sahito, J: Through this application, applicant Ali Bahar son of Lal Dino has sought for his admission to post-arrest bail in Crime No.25/2022 2022, registered at Police Station Abad (District Jacobabad), for offences punishable under Sections 302, 506 (2), 114, 337-H (2), 147, 148 and 149 P.P.C. His similar prayer was declined by Order dated 11.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jacobabad, in Crl. Bail Application No.42 of 2022.

            2.         The allegation against present applicant as per F.I.R lodged by complainant  Irshad Ahmed Panhwar on 02.06.2022 is that, he came at place of incident in company of co-accused persons and co-accused Haider Sargani Jakhrani fired shot at Ali Gohar resulting into his death, while applicant and rest of the co-accused are to have made firing in air. The motive for the incident, as set-out in the F.I.R, is previous annoyance between the parties due to registration of robbery case by complainant party against accused party.

            3.         Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that, F.I.R is delayed for more than one day; that no any active role of causing any injury etc. is assigned to applicant except his presence with aerial firing. Per learned counsel, in these circumstances, the question of sharing common intention vicarious liability of present applicant with principal co-accused would be determined at the time of trial.

            4.         On the other hand, learned D.P.G. appearing for the State opposed grant of bail to the applicant on the grounds that the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R with his name and parentage and that he had facilitated the principal co-accused, who committed murder of an innocent person, as such he is vicariously liable for the murder of deceased.

            5.         No doubt, the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R, but no any active or specific role of causing any injury to any of member of complainant party or to deceased is assigned to him. The applicant has been assigned role of only making aerial firing. The co-accused Haider is alleged to have fired shot at Ali Gohar resulting into his death. As such, question of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of the present applicant with principal accused would be determined at trial. The case has been challaned and custody of the applicant is no more required to police for the purpose of investigation. Reliance is placed in the case of Qurban Ali v. The State reported in 2017 SCMR 279 and Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State (1996 SCMR 1125).

            6.         A tentative assessment of all the above factors make the case of applicant one of further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed. Applicant Ali Bahar is admitted to bail upon his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One hundred thousand rupees) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

            7.         Before parting with this order, it is made clear that, observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice case of either party at trial.

                                                                JUDGE

Ansari/*