IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT

LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 289 of 2021.

Applicant:                 Imtiaz Banglani, through Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijrani, Advocate.

Complainant:            Muhammad Rahim Nindwani, through Mr. Deedar Ali Bangwar, Advocate.

Respondent:              The State, through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of Hearing:       27.09.2021.

Date of Order:           27.09.2021.

O R D E R

Abdul Mobeen Lakho, J: Through this application, applicant Imtiaz son of Haleem alias Hayat Banglani seeks his admission to post-arrest bail in Crime No.36/2020 registered at Police Station Karampur (District Kashmore @ Kandhkot) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 337-H (2), 114, 148 and 149 P.P.C.  Earlier, bail plea of the applicant was declined by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, vide order dated 21.05.2021.

            2.         The prosecution case in nutshell, as per F.I.R No.36/22020 dated 21.4.2020 lodged by complainant Muhammad Rahim is that, on fateful day i.e. 20.4.2020 when complainant party was on the way to Ghouspur town by a Rickshaw were confronted by eight accused persons including present applicant, all of them were armed with T.T pistols and out of them on instigation of co-accused Subzal, the accused-applicant Imtiaz is said to have made direct pistol shot at Bahadur which it him on his abdomen; the co-accused Mubarak is also alleged to have fired at Bahadur which hit on his right arm, while co-accused Khadim is alleged to have fired at P.W Bashir Ahmed hitting on his left leg and after departure of the accused persons the complainant party removed both the injured to Police Post Jamali, where from they obtained a letter for medical treatment and proceeded to Government Hospital Karampur, however injured Bahadur succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital, while injured Bashir Ahmed was referred to Larkana hospital by Karampur hospital. Ultimately, the F.I.R was lodged by the complainant. The motive for the incident as set-out in the F.I.R is previous enmity between the parties.

            3.         Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that, there is delay of one day and seven hours in lodging of the F.I.R; that the P.Ws are interested and related and no independent person cited as witness by the prosecution; that there existed enmity between the parties; as such the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity; that co-accused Sabzal and Saleh were let off by the police during course of investigation by placing their names in column No.2 of the challan sheet and that the co-accused Hafeezullah has been granted post arrest bail. Lastly, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.

            4.         Conversely, learned Advocate for complainant opposed grant of bail to the applicant. He argued that the applicant is nominated in F.I.R with specific role of making pistol shot upon deceased which hit him on his vital part of body i.e. abdomen; that ocular version gets support from the medical evidence as well recovery of empties from place of incident; that the offence with which the applicant stood challaned carries capital punishment and as such it falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.; that the delay in registration of the F.I.R has been fully explained by the complainant in body of the F.I.R; and that after commission of the offence the applicant absconded, as such, he has lost some of his normal rights of grant of bail and does not deserve any concession.

            5.         Learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State while adopting the arguments advanced by learned Advocate for complainant also opposed grant of instant application.

            6.         Perusal of the F.I.R shows that the applicant has been nominated therein with specific role of making pistol shot at Bahadur (deceased) which hit him on his abdomen which is the vital part of body that resulted into his death on way to the hospital. There is also recovery of empties of 30-bore from place of incident which support version of F.I.R with regard to presence of the applicant-accused at place of incident. The motive of the alleged incident is also described within the body of FIR. The delay in reporting the matter to police is also satisfactory explained by the complainant in bottom of the F.I.R. The incident is said to have taken place on 20.4.2020 and challan of the case was filed on 08.05.2020 in which the present applicant was shown as an absconder; however he was arrested later on and sent with supplementary challan meaning thereby that he remained fugitive from law and the Court, and it is well settled law that the fugitive of law loses some of his normal rights of grant of bail and does not deserve any concession. Moreover, the offence, with which the applicant stands charged, falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

            7.         So for as contention of learned counsel that co-accused Sabzal and Saleh were let off by the police during course of investigation and that the co-accused Hafeezullah has been granted post arrest bail; suffice it to say that case of these co-accused is on different foots from the case of present applicant.

            8.         After the tentative assessment of the material available with prosecution the applicant failed to make out a case of further enquiry.  Accordingly, the instant bail application being meritless stands dismissed.

                                                Judge

Ansari