IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application
No.S-317 of 2022
|
DATE
OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE |
1. For orders on
O/objection at flag-A.
2. For hearing of
bail application
Date
of hearing 20.02.2023
Mr. Noor Muhammad
Soomro, Advocate for applicant.
Syed Sardar
Ali Shah, Addl. Prosecutor General
***************
Abdul Mobeen Lakho, J; Through instant bail application, applicant/accused Ghulam
Hyder son of Kando Khan Lashari seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.154/2021 Police
Station, Kotdiji district, Khairpur for offence punishable under
Sections 302, 337H(ii), 148, 149 PPC. Earlier his bail application was declined by learned
IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur vide order dated 06.06.2022.
2. The facts of the
prosecution case are mentioned in the FIR attached with the memo of bail
application and the same are not to be re-produced in view of the case of
Mohammad Shakeel v. The State and others reported as PLD 2014 SC 458.
3. Learned
Counsel for applicant contends that the applicant has falsely been involved in
this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives due to matrimonial
dispute; that there is one day delay in lodging of the FIR which has not
properly explained by the complainant; that there is general allegations of
firing against him hence, it is yet to be determined by the trial Court at
trial whether applicant is involved in the commission of alleged offence or not;
that co-accused Rano Lashari was granted pre-arrest bail by the learned trial
Court vide order dated 31.01.2022 hence, rule of parity is applicable to the
case of present applicant; that vicarious liability is to be seen at the time
of trial after recording evidence; that case has been challaned and applicant is
no longer required for further investigation. By contending so, he prayed
for grant of bail to the
applicant. He relied upon case of Tahir
Zeb and others v. The State and another (2020 SCMR 1685), (2020 SCMR 451.
4. As
against, Syed Sardar Ali Shah, learned Additional Prosecutor General appearing for
the State opposed for grant of bail to the
applicant on the ground that case of applicant is not on same footing to that
of co-accused Rano whose bail has been confirmed and present applicant after
his arrest produced one TT pistol of 30 bore alongwith magazine and three live
bullets; that applicant and other co-accused were made direct firing at
deceased, their names have been transpired in the FIR with specific role; that applicant
was available at spot and had participated in the alleged crime; that during
investigation allegation against
applicant is proved and case has been challaned; that no enmity has been
shown to have false implication of applicant/accused in the commission of crime
and he has shared common intention with co-accused and facilitated to main
accused; that nothing is available on record to show that complainant party had
any motive or reason to falsely implicate accused in the case; that deeper
appreciation of evidence cannot be permitted at bail stage; that applicant is
vicariously liable for the offence; that offence falls within the
prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. He prayed for rejection
of bail.
5. Heard
arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the murderous dispute
between applicant and complainant party was already going on and the role
attributed against present applicant is of general nature. Indeed, co-accused
namely, Rano has been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court and
rule of parity is also applicable to the case of present applicant. Since, role
attributed assigned to the present applicant of causing death of deceased by
firing but there are other co-accused and which fire of which accused hit to
deceased will be determined by the trial Court hence, on merits he has prima facie got good case for grant of bail, therefore,
relying upon the dictum laid down in the cases supra, I am of the opinion that applicant has made out a case of further
inquiry within the meaning of Sub-section (2) to Section 497 Cr.P.C. The
applicant is behind bars since his arrest and trial has not yet
concluded. Investigation in the case was complete therefore, accused was no longer required to Police for further investigation as
such the incarceration of accused/applicant would serve no useful purpose and case against him fell within the ambit
of further inquiry.
6. In view of above, I am of the considered view that
applicant/accused has been able to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, instant bail application is allowed. The applicant/accused, namely, Ghulam Hyder son of Kando
Khan Lashari is granted post-arrest bail subject
to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Rupees Three lacs) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. These are the reasons of my
short order dated 20.02.2023 whereby bail of applicant was allowed.
7. Needless
to mention here that observation made herein above are tentative in nature and
trial Court may not be influenced of the same and decide the case on its own
merits as per evidence and the material made available before it.
Bail
application stands disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Ihsan/*