ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-123 of 2024.
|
DATE OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE |
1. For orders on office objection ‘A’.
2. For hearing of bail application.
28.08.2024.
Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D. P. G.
O R D E R .
KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J- Through instant bail application, applicant Muhammad Ibrahim, son of Muhammad Ayoub Nindwani, seeks his release on post-arrest bail in Crime No.53 of 2022 registered at Police Station Ghouspur (District Kashmore @ Kandhkot), for an offence punishable under sections 302, 114, 148, 149, P.P.C., after the rejection of his bail plea by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, vide order dated 17.02.2024.
2. On 17.11.2022, complainant Abdul Qadeer Nindwani lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Ghouspur mentioning therein as under:
“It is complained that about 30/31 years back, Sabzal Nindwani, father of accused Sikandar Nindwani, was killed while committing theft, and they suspected our involvement, but we had offered them our oath before nek-mards, butthey were unhappy with us and used to issue threats. On 17.11.2022, I, along with my father Mohammad Hassan, son of Karim Bux 50/51 years, Khadim Hussain, son of Meenhon Khan (son of cousin) and maternal cousin Altaf Hussain, son of Muhammad Sharif Nindwani, left out houses on two motorcycles for some work towards Ghouspur. After finishing our work, we were coming back on Highway Road towards our village. I was sitting with my father Mohammad Hassan on one motorcycle, which was being driven by my father Mohammad Hassan, while maternal cousin Altaf Hussain was driving another motorcycle, and the son of our cousin Khadim Hussain was with him. It was about 5:10 p.m.; we reached Khair Muhammad Manganhar Larro, where we saw nine persons on three motorcycles who waylaid us. We stopped and saw and identified them to be 1)Sikandar, son of Sabzal; 2)Muhammad Ibrahim, son of Muhammad Ayoub; 3) Janib, son of Ramzan; 4)Muhammad Malook, son of Moule Dino; 5)Wajid Ali son of Dost Ali, 6)Faiz Muhammad son of Jarro Khan, 7)Sajjan Ali son of Shah Dost @ Shado, 8)Ali Hassan son of Faquir Muhammad, 9)Muneer Ahmed son of Muhammad Malook, all by caste Nindwani. All took out pistols from folders of their shalwars and pointed at us. They got us alighted from our motorcycles and overpowered us. Accused Sikandar Nindwani said my father, SabzalNindwani, is already dead in a theft issue, and we suspected your involvement. Therefore, you will not be spared, and we will kill Muhammad Hassan; on his instigation, accused Muhammad Ibrahim fired his pistol directly at my father, Muhammad Hassan, which hit his belly. Accused Sikandar fired from his pistol at my father Muhammad Hassan, which hit near left side nipple, and he fell down raising cry. Then accused Janib fired from his pistol at my father, Muhammad Hassan, which hit the left side of his chest. Then, accused Wajid Ali fired his pistol at my father, Muhammad Hassan, which hit the left side of his chest. Accused Faiz Muhammad fired from his pistol at Muhammad Hassan, which hit the right side of his chest. Accused Sajjan fired from his pistol at my father, Muhammad Hassan, which hit the right side of his chest. Then accused Munir fired his pistol at my father, Muhammad Hassan, which hit the right side of his chest. We raised cries not to kill innocent person. On seeing vehicles passing on the road and also people coming towards us, all accused saw that my father, Muhammad Hassan, had died and decamped away towards the western side on their three motorcycles. Then we went over my father, Muhammad Hassan, and saw firearm injuries on his belly, near his left nipple, which was through and through, one on the left side chest, another on the left side of his chest and three fires on the right side of chest, blood was oozing, and he was lying seriously injured. We arranged conveyance for first-aid and took him to Sukkur Hospital, but my father, Muhammad Hassan, succumbed to his injuries and died on the way, and we took him to the police station. We obtained the Lash Chakas form and, after postmortem, received the dead body and shifted to the village for burial. F.I.R. to the above effect was lodged.”
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the alleged incident took place on 17.11.2022 and the F.I.R. of the same was lodged on 18.11.2022, after the delay of one day, whereas the distance between the place of incident and the Police Station is only two kilometres, for which the prosecution has furnished no plausible explanation; that the complainant thrown a wide net and implicated as many as nine persons of the same community; that it is very strange that the son of the deceased was present and all the accused made straight fires upon his father and he remained silent and this fact is not believable in any manner; that the complainant went to the Police Station and obtained a letter for treatment without recording the details of the incident in the daily diary which makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful and one of the further enquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant may be granted bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the applicant is nominated in the F.I.R. with the specific role of causing firearm injury straightly upon deceased Muhammad Hassan with his pistol, which hit his belly; that all the P.Ws have supported the case of the prosecution in their 161 CrPC statements and the ocular version is supported by the medical evidence; that the applicant/accused remained absconder for a year; that the charge has been framed and the complainant and P.ws are attending the trial Court regularly but the applicant/accused on one or the other reasons taking adjournment, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the bail.
5. Learned D.P.G appearing for the State opposed the bail application and supported the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the applicant is nominated in the F.I.R. with the specific role of firearm injury upon deceased Muhammad Hassan and the offence alleged against the applicant carries capital punishment.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, and learned D.P.G. appearing for the State. I have also perused the material available on record with their assistance.
7. Admittedly, the present applicant is nominated in the F.I.R. with the specific role of causing firearm injury tothe deceased Muhammad Hassan with his pistol, which hit his abdomen. A perusal of police papers reveals that all the P.Ws have supported the case of the prosecution in their 161 CrPC Statement. The ocular version is supported by the medical evidence. The charge has been framed in the matter, and the P.Ws are attending the trial Court.The record reveals that the applicant/accused has remained fugitive from the law for one year. It is a well-settled law that a fugitive from law loses some of his normal rights. The offence alleged against the applicant carries capital punishment, and in such cases, the bail cannot be normally granted as a matter of right. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there is a delay of one day in the lodgment of F.I.R.is concerned, the delay has been sufficiently explained, as the complainant partly firstly obtained a letter for medical treatment and then shifted to the patient to a hospital. However, he could not succumb to the injuries; after that, the complainant party was busy with the funeral ceremonies of the deceased.In such view of the matter, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to a grant of bail, which is accordingly dismissed. The reliance can be placed on the case of Allah Dewayo Shahani v. The State (2023 SCMR 1724).
8. It has been brought on record that the charge has been framed in the trial; therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to record evidence of P.Ws and conclude the case as early as possible, preferably within six months. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, then the applicant will be at liberty to repeat his application for bail in accordance with the law.
9. The observations made herein above are tentative in nature, which shall not prejudice the case of either party at the trial.
Judge
M Yousuf P/**