IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

1^st Criminal Bail No.S-669 of 2024

Ghulam Murtaza

V/S

The State

Applicant:                                 Through Mr. Saadat Hassan, Advocate.

Complainant:                            Through Mr. Razi Khan Nabi Bux R.

Chandio, Advocate

State:                                       Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro,

Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of Hearing:                        10.02.2025

Date of Decision:                       10.02.2025

O R D E R

Omar Sial, J.- Applicant Ghulam Murtaza, son of Ghulam Mustafa,has been nominated accused in F.I.R. No.04/2024, registered under sections302, 364, 114 & 34 PPC at Gaibidero Police Station. His earlier application seeking bail was dismissed by the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Model Criminal Trial Court, Kamber,vide order dated 23.10.2024.

2.       The F.I.R. was registered on 16.04.2024 on the complaint of Mukhtiar Khatoon, who reported an incident that occurred the previous day. She narrated that her son Afaq had married a girl out of his free will. The girl’s father, Akhtiar Ali Chandio, was unhappy with such a marriage. On the night between the 15^th and 16^th of April at 1:00 a.m., four persons who were identified as Akhtiar, Haji Ghulam Mustafa, Karim Bux, and the applicant Ghulam Murtaza came to their house. Akhtiar shot twice at Afaq while Karim Bux shot once. All the bullets hit Afaq, who died. The applicant, Ghulam Murtaza, is accused of striking Afaq on his elbow with the blunt side of a hatchet.

3.       I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned Additional Prosecutor General.

4.       The Inquest report, the memo of injuries sustained by the deceased, and the post-mortem report of the deceased do not show any injury to the elbow of the deceased. He died due to the bullet injuries that he sustained, which were attributed to Akhtiar and Karim Bux. As far as the applicant is concerned and upon a tentative assessment, the medical evidence does not reconcile with the ocular version. At best, the presence of the applicant is alleged. The record shows that the complainant did not name any person as having killed Afaq when she first informed the police of the occurrence. She was asked again at the time of the post-mortem, but again, she told the police that the F.I.R. would be registered later. There seems to be no reason for the complainant not to name all the assailants when she witnessed the occurrence. Throwing the net wide cannot be conclusively eliminated at this preliminary stage. Whether the applicant was present on the scene and whether he shared a common intention with those who shot at and killed Afaq to make him vicariously liable for their act will have to be determined at trial. At the moment, the case against the applicant is one of further inquiry.

5.       Given the above, the applicant is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to him furnishing a surety of Rs. 500,000 and a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

JUDGE