IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S-668 of 2024

Applicant		Shahzore Jaferi,
		Through Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, advocate
Complainant		Mst. Gul Bano In person

The State		Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State
Date of hearing		22-01-2025
Date of order		22-01-2025

O R D E R

OMAR SIAL, J.- Gul Bano, on 10.07.2024, went to the Lakhi gate police station and provided information of a cognizable offense, resulting in the registration of FIR No. 72 of 2024, under sections 302,148, and 149 P.P.C. She recorded that on 03.07.2024, while she was at home with her family, their neighbor Babu alias Nimano Jaffri came and asked her husband, Gulzar Ali, to accompany him for some work. This caused suspicion in Bano, and she asked her sons, Sumar and Qaim Khan, to follow their father and Babu. As they left to do so, she joined them too. At a certain distance, they witnessed Ghulam Haider alias Misri and Ali Mardan on a motorcycle with another motorcycle on which were two unidentified persons. Both motorcycles sped towards the one on which Babu and Bano’s husband traveled. In this commotion, Babu steered the motorcycle in a manner that led to Gulzar having a fall. Once he fell, Babu directed the two named individuals and the other unidentified ones to open fire on Gulzar, which they did. When the firing was concluded, Bano and her sons overheard Babu communicating to the assailants, “In such a situation, I will be held liable for the murder of Gulzar; therefore, fire at me too…” At his instructions, Ali Mardan shot Babu in his hand, and the four men sped away.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Deputy Prosecutor General. The complainant was present but did not wish to engage a counsel. My observations are as follows.

3. The applicant, Shahroz Jafferi, is allegedly one of the unidentified assailants. Upon a tentative assessment, the very story narrated by Gul Bano appears to be unnatural and unbelievable. It seems that she and her two sons stood as mere by-standers and watched the whole incident while hearing the instructions of Babu Nimanro to the assailants. It is also not explained how the complainant even knew Ali Mardan and Ghulam Haider to identify them at the place of the incident. Be that as it may, the incident occurred on 03.07.2024, and the applicant, said to be one of the unidentified persons, was arrested on 24.07.2024 on a statement by Gul Bano on 23.07.2024. The statement does not reveal how Gul Bano learned that the applicant was one of the unidentified persons. Upon a query from the court, she told the DPG that she was roaming around in the market when she saw the applicant and identified him. When a further inquiry was made, she said she informed the police from the marketplace. She changed her story in the next breath and claimed that the applicant was in police custody and the police had called her where she had identified him. The first reason given by her appears unnatural. However, even trying to defend her position and change it reflects malafide. The unexplained seven-day delay in lodging FIR in such a situation becomes important. Admittedly, no recovery has taken place from the applicant. Nor was an identification parade held. No evidence apart from the belated statement made by the complainant is on record against the applicant. The case against the applicant is one of further inquiry.

4. Upon a tentative assessment again, the reason for this false accusation attributed by the learned counsel for the applicant may be correct. Counsel submitted that the deceased owed money to Ghulam Haider, the applicant's brother, and therefore, the applicant, who had nothing to do with the incident, was nominated as an accused.

5. Above are the reasons for the short order of 22.01.2025 through which the applicant was admitted to bail against a surety of Rs. 100,000/- and a P.R Bond in the same amount, subject to the trial court's satisfaction.

JUDGE