IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,LARKANA

Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-107 of 2023

Applicant	Shahmeer Bharo s/o Allahwarayo
	Through Mr. Mian Mumtaz Rabani, advocate
Complainant	Amanullah Rahoojo (in person)
State	Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State
Date of hearing	27-04-2023
Date of order	27-04-2023

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through instant criminal bail application, the applicant/accused Shahmeer Bharo seeks post arrest-bail in Crime No.58/2022, registered at Police Station Naudero, for the offence U/S 364-A, 302 P.P.C, after rejection of his bail plea by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, vide order dated 01.03.2023.

2. The facts of the incident are mentioned in the memo of bail application and the copy of F.I.R. is also attached with the bail application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same here.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant due to previous enmity in between applicant and driver Inam Ali; that on the instigation of said taxi driver Inam Ali, the complainant along with one Sohail Ahmed, recorded their false statements against the applicant/accused; that name of the applicant/accused has not been mentioned in the F.I.R as the incident is unseen incident; that statements of the P.Ws U/S 161 Cr.P.C have been recorded with the delay of two days; that there is no any independent witness in the case, hence the case of prosecution appears to be doubtful and the applicant/accused is entitled for grant of bail.

4. Learned D.P.G. assisted by complainant has vehemently opposed for grant of bail on the ground that there is sufficient material available on the record to connect the applicant/accused with the commission of offence; that this is heinous offence in which one innocent boy has been murdered brutally; that there is no malafide on the part of the police to involve the applicant. Lastly he has prayed that bail application may be dismissed

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, complainant in person, learned D.P.G. and perused the material available on the record with their able assistance.

6. Admittedly, there is delay of one day in lodgment of the F.I.R and name of the applicant/accused does not transpired in the F.I.R. From the perusal of contents of the F.I.R. it reflects that the incident of murder is unseen, and there is only hearsay evidence of the complainant and he has not mentioned proper date, time and place of alleged incident in the FIR. The names of the P.Ws who saw the deceased with accused are not mentioned in the F.I.R though it was registered with the delay of one day. After two days of the incident, statements of said P.Ws Inam Ali and Suhail Ahmed have been recorded, who have implicated the applicant/accused that they saw the deceased boy on motorcycle with the accused and the explanation so furnished by them for such a delay is also not satisfactory.

7. Record further reflects that the case has been challaned and the applicant is behind the bars since 22.07.2022, without any progress in the trial. In such circumstances, the case of applicant requires further inquiry entitling him for grant of post-arrest bail.

8. It is well settled law that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage and only material is to be assessed tentatively. While considering the facts and circumstances of the case tentatively, applicant/accused has made out case for grant of post-arrest bail. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application is allowed. The applicant/accused is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one lac only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.

9. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned trial court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

J U D G E