ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANO

Cr. Bail Application No.S- 307 of 2020

Applicant(s):                                     Anwar Ali @ Anwar, through               Mr.  Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate.

The State:                                          Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG.

Date of hearing:                     22.09.2022.

Date of order:                         22.09.2022.

ORDER

Naimatullah Phulpoto-J. Applicant Anwar Ali @ Anwar seeks pre arrest bail in Crime No.01/2018 registered at Police Station Kety Mumtaz on 02.01.2018, for offences punishable under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337-H(2) PPC.

            Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the F.I.R are that present incident occurred on 1.1.2018 at 09:30 am within the territorial limits of Police Station Kety Mumtaz. In the incident three murders were committed by the accused persons with deadly weapons over dispute on land. During investigation appellant and co-accused could not be arrested and challan was submitted against the accused under section 512 Cr.PC, however, appellant surrendered before the trial court and applied for pre arrest bail but the learned 1st. Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, rejected the same vide his order dated 16.6.2020. Hence, applicant has approached this court.   

            Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that applicant/accused has been involved in this case due to dispute over the land and he had no knowledge regarding registration of the present case against him. Counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that applicant has been involved in this case malafidely in order to humiliate and disgrace him in the society.

            On the other hand, learned DPG opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role of firing upon deceased Naid Narejo by means of Kalshnikov. It is also submitted that applicant was fugitive from law for about 1 1/2 year and prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

            I have carefully heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of FIR, 161 Cr.PC statements of the PWs and material collected during investigation. It is a matter of the record that name of applicant/accused transpires in the FIR with specific role of causing fire arm injury to deceased Naid Narejo, which is supported by the medical evidence/ postmortem report. PWs in their 161 Cr.PC statements have also fully implicated the applicant in the commission of the offence. During investigation applicant/accused absconded away and final report was submitted by the Investigation officer under section 512 Cr.PC. Applicant was fugitive from law for about 1 1/2 year without explanation. Prima facie there appears reasonable ground for believing that applicant/accused is involved in the commission of offence, which carries capital punishment. Learned DPG has rightly relied upon the case of Abu Bakar Siddique v. The State and others (2021 SCMR 5). Relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

"5.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

                                    There is no denial to this fact that the occurrence has taken place in the broad day light. The parties are unknown to each other. There is specific allegation against the petitioner of causing firearm injury to Abid Ali one of the injured P.Ws. Three persons sustained firearm injuries besides the deceased Muhammad Ashraf alias Kali. The finding of Investigating Officer, that petitioner is only involved to extent of only aerial firing would be resolved by the learned trial court after recording of evidence. Although the injured P.W has specifically ascribed the role of causing firearm injury of the petitioner. Prima facie there is sufficient material available on the record to connect the petitioner to guilt as alleged which entails capital punishment."

            Moreover, ingredients for grant of pre arrest bail are absolutely missing in this case. Applicant/accused is not entitled for an extra ordinary relief. Consequently, interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicant by this court vide order dated 19.6.2020, is hereby recalled.

            Needless to mention that observations made herein above are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding instant bail applications, which shall not, in any manner, prejudice the case of either party before the trial court.

                                                                                                J U D G E

S.Ashfaq