ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANO

Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-277    of 2024

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of bail application.

24.09.2024.

Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. P.G.

Mr. Ali Nawaz Depar, advocate along with Complainant.

O R D E R.

Khadim Hussain Soomro, J.-Through this application, applicant Wazeer Ali, son of Ghulam Shabir Jatoi, seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.43/2022, registered with Police Station Waleed, Larkana, for an offence under Sections 302, 148, 149, PPC. Such request of the applicant was declined by the trial Court/Additional Sessions Judge-V, Larkana, vide order dated 30.03.2024.

2.                 The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 06.03.2022, at about 1.00 p.m. time, near Dubai Hotel situated at New Bus Stand, Larkana, the applicant and five others named in the FIR along with one unidentified accomplice, being armed with pistols, attacked upon the complainant party, who was waiting there for conveyance for proceeding to Ratodero town, wherein co-accused Bashir Ahmed and Naveed Ali committed murders of Complainant's sons Ali Dino and Dilbar Ali by making fires upon them. 

3.                 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been implicated falsely in this case by the complainant party in the background of previous enmity, which is admitted in the FIR. He further submits that there is a delay of 02 days in lodging of FIR, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the Complainant. He next submits that per FIR, the mere presence of the applicant is shown at the relevant time, and no overt act is attributed to him in the commission of the alleged offence; hence, the case against him requires further enquiry.

4.                 Learned Addl. P.G., appearing for the State, candidly conceded the grant of bail to the applicant.

5.                 Learned Counsel for the Complainant opposed the bail application on the ground(s) that the Complainant has reasonably explained the delay in lodging the FIR; the present applicant, along with co-accused, attacked upon the complainant party by hatching conspiracy and by aiming his pistol to the Complainant he also facilitated the co-accused in killing two young innocent sons of the Complainant, whereby he has fully shared common intention with the co-accused in committing murders of deceased. He further contended that the applicant also remained fugitive from the law. Therefore, he is not entitled toa concession of bail. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases reported as Muhammad Khan v. Iqbal Khan and another (2021 SCMR 2017), Mulo Ahmed v. The State(2011 MLD 1171) and Dhani Bux v. The State (1989 SCMR 239).

6.                 I heard counsel for the applicant and learned Addl. P.G. for the State learned counsel for the Complainant and perused the available material.

7.                 From a perusal of the FIR, the parties appear to be on inimical terms with each other. There is a delay of 02 days in lodgment of FIR. The role assigned to the applicant in the alleged incident is of mere presence, and no active part in the commission of the alleged offence is assigned to him. The pivotal role of firing at and committing the murders of deceased Ali Dino and Dilbar is assigned to co-accused Bashir Ahmed and Naveed Ali. Given the admitted hostility between the parties, the unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, and the absence of any overt act attributed to the applicant, his case warrants further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The reliance can be placed in the case of Muhammad Irfan V/S The State (2014 S C M R 1347).

9.                 Furthermore, with respect to the applicant's absconding, it is a well-established legal principle that if the accused presents a strong prima facie case for the grant of bail on merits, mere absconding does not automatically disqualify them from receiving the concession of bail. Reliance can be placed on the case of Mitho Pitafi v. The State (2009 SCMR-299).

10.               For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

11.               It needs no reiteration here that the observations recorded hereinabove are based on a tentative assessment of the material placed on record, which shall not influence the trial Court in any manner while deciding the fate of the case at its final stage.

Judge

Qazi Tahir PA/*