ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-220 of 2024

(Riaz Joyo Vs. The State)

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For the hearing of the bail application.

29.07.2024.

Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate for the complainant.

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 the prosecution of its common object, besides murdering Sajid Ali, fired and injured PWs Abdul Rehman, Abdul Fattah and Abdul Rahim intending to commit their murder and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for which the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamshore, 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 based on vicarious liability and more so, co-accused Farooq Abdullah and two others have already been admitted to bail by this Court, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on the point of further inquiry.

4.                    Learned DPG for the State recorded no objection to the release of the applicant on bail, however, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to the release of the applicant on bail by contending that he has remained in absconsion for a considerable period.

5.        Heard arguments and perused the record.

6.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with a delay of about one day. No injury either to the deceased or any of the injured is attributed to the applicant. The parties have a grudge over the construction of the house. The case has finally been challaned and there is no likelihood of absconsion or tampering with the evidence on the part of the applicant.   In these circumstances, a case for the release of the applicant on bail on the point of further inquiry is made.

7.        In the case of Mitho Pitafi & Ors vs. the State (2009 SCMR-299), it has been held by the Apex Court that;

“Bail, grant of---Co-accused was released on bail by the Trial Court, but the concession of bail was declined to the accused petitioner on the ground that he was fugitive from law---High Court as well as the Trial Court had rejected the bail of petitioner on account of his absconsion and not on merits---Validity---Bail could be granted, if accused had good case for bail on merits and mere his absconsion would not come in the way while granting him bail---High Court had not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective while declining bail to the petitioner”.

8.        Under the discussed circumstances, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 

9.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE