ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr.B.A.No.S-55 of 2023

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application.

06.04.2023.

Mr. Safdar Ali Bhutto, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

  -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

IRSHAD ALI SHAH J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, caused fire shot injuries to PWs Saddam Hussain, Qurban and Nazir with intention to commit their murder and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment and by threatening and insulting complainant party, for that the present case was registered.

2.        On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 497 Cr.PC.

3.        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has been involved in this case by the complainant party only to satisfy with him its dispute over landed property and no effective role in commission of the incident is attributed to him, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on point of further enquiry.

4.        None has come forward to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant. However, learned Addl.P.G for the State has opposed to release of the applicant by contending that he is vicariously involved in commission of the incident.

5.        Heard arguments and perused the record.

6.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of two days; such delay has not been explained plausibly; the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing; the parties are already disputed over landed property; therefore, the involvement of the applicant in commission of the incident on the basis of allegation of aerial firing could only be determined at trial; the case has finally been challaned and there is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence on the part of applicant who is said to be in custody for about one year without effective progress in trial of his case; in these circumstances, a case for release of applicant on bail on point of further inquiry obviously is made out.

7.        In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Magistrate. 

8.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE