ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl.B.A.No.S-86 of 2024
(Muhammad Yousif Vs. The State)
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
For the hearing of the bail application.
01.08.2024.
Mr.Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Safdar Ali Bhutto, 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, fired and killed Ali Nawaz and then went away by making fires at complainant Muhammad Nawaz and his witnesses intending to commit their murder, for which the present case was registered.
2. The applicant having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, 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 his grudge against him; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with a delay of about one day and the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent that he caused fire shot injury to the deceased on his right shoulder, as such, he is entitled to be released on bail on the point of further inquiry.
4. Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the release of the applicant on bail by contending that the applicant has actively participated in the commission of the incident by causing fire shot injury to the deceased and has also remained in absconsion for about one year.
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 after having formed an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of its common object, went over to the complainant party and then murdered Ali Nawaz by causing him fireshot injuries only to satisfy its grudge with him. The specific role of causing fire shot injury to the deceased on his shoulder is attributed to the applicant. 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. The delay in the lodgment of the FIR by one day is well explained in the FIR itself; it was natural in the circumstances of the present case; the same even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. The applicant after the commission of the incident has preferred to go in absconsion which he has not been able to explain plausibly, therefore, it could not be lost sight of. By such an act, he has defeated the recovery of the crime weapon from him being a valuable piece of evidence. 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