IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Application No. S-120 of 2021

Applicant:                        Ali Hassan s/o Muhammad Hassan Bangulani,  

Through Mr. Pervaiz Ali Mettlo, Advocate.

Complainant:                  Jan Muhammad Bangulani,

Through Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, advocate.

State:                              Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G

Date of hearing:                        17-09-2021

Date of Decision:                       17-09-2021

O R D E R

ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, J.-   Through the captioned bail application, applicant Ali Hassan son of Muhammad Hassan Bangulani seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.61/2011, registered at Police Station A Section Thull, District Jacobabad, for the offences U/S 302,337-H(2),148,149,504 P.P.C. His earlier bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad vide order dated 16.12.2020.

2. Facts of the case as per F.I.R lodged by the complainant Jan Muhammad on 03.05.2021 at 1200 are that on the same day, he alongwith his brother Haji Ghulam Nabi, nephew Abdul Rehman, cousin Muhammad Ramzan left their village towards Thul, at about 1100 hours when they reached beside Madina chowk, Noor Muhammad Bhatti & Imamuddin Bhatti met with them, they were talking to each other, in the meantime, they saw the accused persons, namely,  Hundo Khan, Noor Hassan, Ali Hassan, Jan Muhammad, Thangai @ Kaaro and two (2) unknown culprits armed with T.T pistols came, accused Hundo Khan challenged the complainant party that they were supporting Aalman Bangulani party, therefore, they would not be spared today. Thereafter, accused Hundo Khan, Noor Hassan and Jan Muhammad fired from their T.T pistols upon Ghulam Nabi which hit him, who fell down on the ground, while accused Ali Hassan & Thangai @ Kaaro fired from their T.T pistols upon Noor Muhammad Bhatti, which him and he fell on the ground and unknown culprits made their escape good by making aerial firing in order to create harassment. Ghulam Nabi & Noor Muhammad succumbed to injuries on the spot, hence the F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case. The prosecution story is managed & concocted. All the witnesses are related interse and no independent person was cited as witness as there is no strong evidence available with the prosecution to connect the applicant/accused with commission of the alleged offence. He further contended that there are general allegations of firing from T.T pistols against the applicant/accused & co-accused Thangai @ Karro upon the deceased Noor Muhammad Bhatti, therefore, case requires further enquiry. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed for the grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant/accused.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused and further contended that the applicant/accused is nominated in the FIR with specific role that he fired from his T.T pistol upon deceased Noor Muhammad Bhatti alongwith co-accused Thangai, which hit him and he died on the spot. He further contended that mere relationship of the PWs is no ground for grant of bail to an accused in a case of capital punishment, as two innocent persons have lost their lives at the hands of the applicant/accused and co-accused on petty matter. He further contended that the absconding accused are issuing threats of dire consequences to the complainant party and if the applicant/accused is granted bail, there is likely hood of another similar incident. The applicant/accused remained fugitive from law for long period; therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.

5. Learned D.P.G. submits that there are double murders and applicant has been named in the F.I.R with specific role as the applicant/accused along with co-accused Thangai @ Kaaro fired from their T.T pistols upon Noor Muhammad Bhatti, who succumbed at the spot, he has prayed for dismissal of the bail to the applicant/accused.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record with their able assistance.

7. Only tentative assessment is required to be made at the bail stage. Admittedly the name of the applicant/accused is mentioned in the F.I.R with specific role of causing straight fire upon Noor Muhammad which caused his death. Prima facie the medical evidence is supported by ocular account in respect of the role attributed to the applicant/accused. It is a case of double murder and the applicant/accused along with co-accused have committed the murders of Noor Muhammad & Haji Ghulam Nabi and according to Postmortem report, the cause of death is fire arm injuries to the deceased noted by the M.L.O in the postmortem report as under;

i.   A L.P.C size 1 cm x diameter with inverted margins on the left side of the chest anteriorly (wound of entrance), through & through a L.P.W size 1¼ cm with everted margins on the right side of the back of chest laterally (wound of  exit)

ii.    A L.P.W size 1 cm x diameter with everted margins on the right side of fore arm medially (wound of entrance), through & through a L.P.W size 2 cm x diameter with everted margins on the right side of fore arm laterally (wound of exit).

iii.   A L.P.W size 1 cm x diameter with inverted margins on the left hand on dorsum side laterally (wound of entrance), through & through a L.P.W size 2 cm x diameter with everted  margins on the left hand on palmer side of hand medially (wound of exit)

8. The offence with which the applicant/accused is charged falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, the eye witnesses in their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C had specifically nominated accused who was known to witnesses prior to occurrence. The F.I.R was lodged promptly.

9. Moreover, after committing the above offence in the year 2011, the applicant/accused had remained fugitive for a long time of nine years before he was arrested in this case. Such long and un-explained abscondence along with specific role of causing death does not entitle him for concession of bail.

10. In these circumstances; I am of the considered view that the applicant has not made out his case for grant of post-arrest bail. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application was dismissed vide short order dated 17.09.2021 and these are the reasons of the same.

11. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

J U D G E

Abdul Salam/P.A