ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-591 of 2024

Applicants	Sadam Hussain and Anwar Ali
	through Mr. Ghulam Rasool Narejo, advocate
Complainant	Mst. Zulekhan Vesser
	Through Mr. Muhammad Sharif Ghanghro, advocate
The State	Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G.
Date of hearing	28-03-2025
Date of order	28-03-2025

SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI, J.- Through instant criminal bail application, the applicants/accused Sadam Hussain and Anwar Ali, seek post-arrest bail in Crime No. 31/2024, registered at Police Station Lashari, for the offence U/S 452, 302, 324, 114, 337-A(i), 337-H(2) 148, 149 P.P.C, after rejection of their bail plea by the learned trial court vide order dated: 30.09.2024.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 21.05.2024 at 07-30 p.m. applicant/accused along with seven other co-accused committed murder of deceased Mujahid and caused hatched blow to injured Nasrullah on his head.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused has contended that applicants/accused are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case; there is delay of 13 days in lodgment of F.I.R without plausible explanation; that specific role for causing fire arm injury has been assigned to co-accused Ghulam Shabir and that co-accused Khalid Hussain caused hatched blow to injured Nasrullah on his head and role of aerial firing has been assigned to applicant/accused; that there is counter version of alleged incident as applicant Anwar Ali lodged the F.I.R No.27/2024 at same Police Station U/S 302 P.P.C, wherein his father was killed by complainant party.  He has relied upon the case laws reported as 2014 SCMR 1347. He has prayed for grant of post arrest bail.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed for grant of bail on the ground that applicant/accused is nominated in the F.I.R. He actively participated in the alleged offence; during investigation crime weapon i.e. pistol has been recovered from his possession, same was sent to Forensic Expert and the F.S.L report has been received as positive, which connects him in the alleged offence, which carries capital punishment. They have prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant, learned D.P.G. and perused the material available on the record.

6. Admittedly, there is delay of 13 days in lodging of F.I.R without any plausible explanation and in background of enmity it cannot be ruled out that F.I.R was lodged after due deliberation and consultation. Specific role for causing fire arm injury to deceased has been assigned to co-accused Ghulam Shabir, whereas co-accused Khalid Hussain caused hatchet blow to injured Nasrullah on his head. Allegation against the applicant is that he fire in the air at the scene of offence. In my humble view, sharing of common intention object requires further inquiry. The point of vicarious liability is yet to be determined at the time of trial as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v/s. The State reported in 1996 SCMR 1125, 2021 SCMR 63 and 1999 SCMR 1320.

7. More over there is counter version of alleged offence and applicant Anwar Ali had lodged F.I.R No.27/2024 at Police Station Lashari for offence U/S 302, 324, 337-A(i), F(i), 114, 148, 149 P.P.C, wherein father of applicant was murdered by the complainant of this case.

8. In view the above facts and circumstance and the dicta laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases (supra), the case of applicants seems to be one of further enquiry as contemplated in subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C and the tentative assessment of material available on record, it appears that applicants have made out their case for further inquiry, therefore, the applicants/accused are admitted on post-arrest bail post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Rupees three hundred thousand) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

9. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned trial court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

J U D G E

Abdul Salam/P.A