IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-768 of 2024
|
Applicant |
: |
Abdul Sattar s/o Gulan Jeho, |
|
|
|
Through Mr. Rafique Ahmed K. Abro, advocate |
|
|
|
|
|
The State |
: |
Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State
|
|
Complainant |
: |
Mst. Kareema Khatoon |
|
|
|
(called absent) |
|
|
|
|
|
Date of hearing |
|
16-04-2025 |
|
Date of order |
|
16-04-2025 |
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant criminal bail application, applicant/accused Abdul Sattar Jeho seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.20/2023, registered under Sections 302, 114, 148, 149, 337-H(2) P.P.C Prior to this, he filed such application but the same was turned down by the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, vide order dated 10.12.2024, hence he has filed instant criminal bail application.
2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/accused is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity; that the role assigned against the applicant is only instigation; that whole story narrated in the F.I.R is concocted and no motive for the commission of the offence has been given; no specic role has been assigned to the applicant/accused in the murder of deceased; no any incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of applicant/accused relating to the commission of the offence. Lastly he has prayed for grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant.
4. On last date of hearing, the complainant was present but today she is called absent, no intimation is received.
5. On the other hand learned D.P.G. has vehemently opposed for grant of bail on the ground that he is nominated in the F.I.R with specific role of instigation and on his instigation murder of a young boy has been made by the other co-accused, therefore he is not entitled for concession of bail.
6. Heard and perused.
7. In the case of TARIQ BASHIR and 5 others versus The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"There is no legal compulsion to cancel the bail of the accused who allegedly have committed crime punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years. Question of benefit of reasonable doubt is necessary to be determined not only while deciding the question of guilt of an accused but also while considering the question of bail because there is a wide difference between the jail life and a free life. So, benefit of reasonable doubt 'about occurrence itself, identity of the accused, part allegedly played by him in the occurrence, his presence on the spot and on the question of his vicarious liability, would go to him even at bail stage. There is a tendency to involve innocent persons with the guilty. Once an innocent person is falsely involved in a serious case then he has to remain in jail for considerable time. Normally it takes two years to conclude the trial. When a person is detained in the jail, all his dependents also suffer hardships. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration -at any stage of the case, albeit his acquittal in the long run. So, whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime, he should not be deprived of the benefit of bail. The bail can neither be withheld nor cancelled as punishment."
8. From perusal of record, it appears that though the name of applicant/accused has appeared in the F.I.R but no specific role for causing murder of the deceased has been assigned to the applicant/accused only mere presence has been shown at the place of incident with empty handed. Furthermore the role has been assigned to the applicant/accused is that he has instigated other co-accused for committing murder of deceased. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the case of Qurban Ali v. The State and others (2017 SCMR 279), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant bail to an accused who had not been assigned any overt act during the commission of the offence, save for the role of raising a 'lalkara'. It was observed that, under such circumstances, it fell upon the trial court to determine, after recording the respective evidence, whether the accused was vicariously liable for the acts committed by his co-accused.
9. It is further argued that the applicant/accused is presently in judicial custody, and his continued detention would serve no useful purpose, as the challan has already been submitted and he is no longer required for the purposes of investigation. In this regard, reliance is also placed upon an unreported judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Jahzeb Khan v. The State through A.G. KPK and others, Criminal Petition No.594/2020, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to hold that:
"4..... Petitioner's continuous detention is not likely to improve upon investigative process, already concluded, thus, he cannot be held behind the bars as a strategy for punishment. A case for petitioner's release on bail stands made out."
10. At bail stage, only a tentative assessment is to be seen. However, the role assigned to present applicant/accused for sharing common intention will be decided at the time of recording evidence
11. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out a case for grant of post-arrest bail in view of sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C, resultantly the instant bail application is allowed and the applicant/accused Abdul Sattar Jeho is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
12. 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