ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl.B.A.No.S-80 of 2024
(Imran Khan Badani Jatoi Vs. The State)
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
For the hearing of the bail application.
26.07.2024.
Mr.Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with the rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of its common object, fired and killed Ghulam Shabir and Nizamuddin and then went away by making fires in the air to create harassment, for which the present case was registered.
2. The applicant having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, has sought 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 the applicant is innocent and has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant to satisfy her enmity with him; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with a delay of about seven hours and the allegation against the applicant is general; therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on the point of further inquiry.
4. Learned D.P.G for the State has opposed the release of the applicant on bail by contending that the firing was indiscriminate and the applicant after the commission of the incident has gone in absconsion for about nine months and the case is ripe for evidence.
5. Heard arguments and perused the record.
6. The applicant is named in the FIR with an allegation that he with the rest of the culprits went over to the complainant party and in prosecution of its common object, murdered Ghulam Shabir and Nizamuddin by causing them fireshot injuries only to avenge their enmity with them. It was an act of indiscriminate firing; therefore, it was impossible for the complainant to have ascribed each injury sustained by the deceased to each culprit, involved in the incident. In such a situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant is innocent and has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party only to satisfy its enmity with him. The delay in the lodgment of the FIR by seven hours was natural in the case like the present one; the same even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. The applicant after the commission of the incident had gone in an unexplained absconsion for a considerable period, such absconsion having not been explained plausibly could not be lost sight of. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence with which he is charged and no case for his release on bail is made.
7. Under the discussed circumstances, the instant bail application is dismissed.
JUDGE