IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-12 of 2025
|
Applicant |
: |
Ali Nawaz s/o Gul Muhammad Jamali |
|
|
|
Through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, advocate, advocate |
|
|
|
|
|
The State |
: |
Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State
|
|
Complainant |
: |
Mst. Habiban, |
|
|
|
Through Mr. Javed Ahmed Buledi, advocate |
|
|
|
|
|
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 Ali Nawaz seeks interim pre-arrest bail in Crime No.106/2023, for the offence U/s 302, 114, 148, 149 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Hyderi. Prior to this, he filed such application but the same was turned down by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Larkana, vide order dated 09.01.2025, 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; that the role assigned against the applicant is only instigation and as per complainant, he was present at the place of incident with empty handed. He submits that due to dispute, name of applicant has been give in this case. he has lastly prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail. He further submits that the applicant has not misused the concession of pre-arrest bail. He prays for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned D.P.G. have vehemently opposed for grant of bail and state that he has shared his common intention with the co-accused, therefore he is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. Heard and perused.
6. From perusal of record, it appears that mere presence of applicant has been shown at the place of incident. Furthermore the role assigned to present applicant that he has instigated the co-accused Lutuf Ali 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.
7. 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. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pleaded malafide on the part of the complainant.
8. In view of above, the applicant/accused has made out case for grant of interim pre-arrest bail. Resultantly, instant bail application is allowed. Interim order passed earlier vide order dated 13.01.2025 is confirmed on same terms and conditions.
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