THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANO
Crl. Bail Appln.No.S-83 of 2024.
Crl. Bail Appln.No.S-94 of 2024.
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1. For orders on office objection 'A'.
2. For hearing of bail application.
24.09.2024
Mr. Ayaz Ahmed Faras, advocate for the applicants in Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-83 of 2024.
Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, advocate for the applicant in Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-94 of 2024.
Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. P.G.
O R D E R.
KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J.- By this common order, I intend to decide on the above two captioned bail applications, as both the matters arising out of the same F.I.R. Through these bail applications, applicants Ameer Din and Asif Ali (In Crl. Bail Appln.No.S-83 of 2023) and applicant Shahnawaz Domki (in Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-94 of 2024), seek their release on bail in Crime No.52/2023, registered with Police Station Buxapur, under Sections 302, 148, & 149, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.06.2023 at 1440 hours, complainant Mst. Hazara Khatoon, W/o Allah Warayo, lodged the F.I.R. stating therein thatthere exists a longstanding murderous enmity with the accused Bakhat Ali Domki party and the accused persons'committed homicides against their family members, with similar cases also registered at the Police Station. Yesterday, on 08.06.2023, early in the morning, the complainant, along with her father-in-law Nizamuddin, aged approximately 80 years, Riaq Ahmed, and her nephew Ajabuddin, son of Barkat Ali Domki, were standing and tending to the paddy seeds planted in the land in front of their house. At approximately 08:00 hours that morning, they observed and identified all the accused individuals1.Babu @ Rasool Bux, son of GhousBux, 2.Bakhat Ali, son of Ali Nawaz, has K.K in hand, 3.Abdullah, son of Bakhat Ali, has G-3 in hand; 4.Zafarullah son of Muhammad Alam; 5.Saleem son of Dildar, 6.Rind @ Muhammad Hanif, son of Rasool Bux @ Babu, 7.Ghoto @ Sharif, son of Babu @ Rasool Bux, 8.Abbas, son of Wahid Bux, 9.Asif son of Khawand Bux, 10.Sanaullah son of Illahi Bux, 11.Ameeruddin son of Mehrullah having gun in hand, 12.QadirBux, son of Muhammad Hashim, 13.Gul Hassan son of Hussain Bux, 14.Shahnawaz son of Ali Nawaz, 15.Nizamuddin, son of Ali Nawaz, & 16.Wilayat Ali, son of Muhammad Nawaz, having T.T Pistols, came there and, on coming, accused Bakhat Ali, making Hakal say that they had come to kill them; on saying so, accused Abdullah made straight fire from G-3 Rifle with the intention of the murder of his father-in-law Nizamuddin, which hit on the thigh of his right foot, who fall down on earth, thereafter all accused went away to the eastern side, then the complainant party saw that father-in-law Nizamuddin was having firearm injury on thigh of his right foot, blood was oozing, Consequently, after obtaining a letter from the Police Station, he was taken to the hospital, where he was referred for further treatment. While on the way to Raheem Yar Khan city at approximately 11:20 hours, he succumbed to his injuries. The deceased's body was then transported to the Police Station, where necessary proceedings were conducted before returning home for the funeral ceremony. An F.I.R. was subsequently lodged, alleging that the above-mentioned accused, with common intention and due to ongoing murderous enmity, Committed the murder of Nizamuddin, the complainant's father-in-law.
3. Learned counsels for the applicants submit that the applicants have been implicated falsely by the complainant party on account of longstanding murderous enmity; that the F.I.R. is lodged with the delay of about one day for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that the contents of F.I.R. show that complainant has implicated all the male members of one and same community; that no any specific role of causing an injury has been attributed against the applicants; that the complainant has nominated 16 accused persons in the F.I.R. which is impossible to identify such a huge number of persons with their exact name, parentage and address; that the role against the applicants is of mere presence and no overt act has been attributed against them. Therefore, learned counsels submit that the case against the applicants requires further enquiry; hence, they may be granted bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application on the ground that the applicants have not been assigned any active role. Yet, they, being a participants of the main accused, are liable to be prosecuted for their vicarious liability, and since the offence with which they stand charged is a heinous one, bail cannot be granted to the accused person frequently.
5. Learned Addl. P.G., appearing for the State, does not oppose the bail applications on the ground that no overt act has been assigned to any of the applicants and mere presence has been shown by the complainant.
6. Heard learned counsels for the applicants and learned counsel for the complainant and Addl. P.G. and have gone through the available material with their assistance.
7. Admittedly, a longstanding murderous enmity exists between the complainant and the accused party. The complainant has nominated sixteen persons of the same family as the accused in the present case. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the present applicants were armed with K.Ks and guns, but no overt act has been assigned against any of the applicants. Mere the presence of the applicants has been shown by the complainant at the scene of the incident, and the role of firing at the deceased was attributed to co-accused Abdullah. Therefore, the case of the present applicants accused comes within the ambit of 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).
8. It is a well-settled principle of law that every accused would be presumed to be a blue-eyed boy of law until and unless he may be found guilty of the alleged charge. The law cannot be stretched in favour of the prosecution, particularly at the bail stage. In the circumstances, the case against the applicants is of further enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, both bail applications are hereby allowed. The applicants shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/-(Rupees one hundred thousand only) each and P.R bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. Needless to mention here that the observations made herein-above are tentative in nature, which shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
Judge
M.YousufP/**