ORDER
SHEET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Order with signature of Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Muhammad Abrar Arain, advocate for
applicant.
Ms. Rubina
Qadir Addl. PG.
Date of
Hearing & Order: 01.09.2025
*******
Arshad Hussain Khan
J; Through the instant Criminal Bail
Application, the applicant/accused, Khadim Hussain Shah son
of Chuttan Shah, seeks post-arrest bail in
Crime No.14 of 2023, registered at Police Station Keti Bundar, District Thatta, under Sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 114, and
504 of the Pakistan Penal Code. His earlier Bail Application, bearing No.1358
of 2023, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I / Model
Criminal Trial Court, Thatta, vide order dated
07.10.2023.
2. The brief facts of case
are sufficiently mentioned in memo of bail application as well as in the FIR,
hence need not to be reiterated here.
3. Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/accused is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity between
the parties, as the applicant was the complainant in FIR No. 28 of 2019. It is
argued that there is an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR. Counsel
further contends that the mandatory requirement of Section 103, Cr.P.C. has been disregarded, as no private or independent
witness was associated by the police as mashir.
He further submits that although the applicant is alleged to have fired upon
the deceased, namely Nazar Ali Shah, the postmortem report clearly reflects
that the death was caused by a sharp-cutting injury to the head, whereas the
injury attributed to the applicant is only superficial in nature. It is also
urged that the present case is one of counter-version, inasmuch as a criminal
case filed by the applicant’s party against the complainant’s side has already
been decided in favour of the applicant’s party. It
is argued that above facts render the case one of further inquiry. Lastly, it
is contended that the investigation has been completed and the final challan
has been submitted before the competent court; therefore, the applicant is no
longer required for investigation and is entitled to the concession of bail at
this stage.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General
strongly opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused as he is involved
in heinous crime of murder and his name is mentioned in the FIR with specific
role. She further submits that the ocular and medical evidence fully support
the stance of the prosecution, as such, instant bail application may be
dismissed.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the
applicant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as perused the record
with their assistance.
6. On a
tentative assessment of the material available on record, it appears that the
applicant has been specifically named in the FIR with the assigned role of
causing firearm injury to the deceased. The record further reflects that the
weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence was recovered and duly
forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with the crime-empty for
ballistic examination. As per the report of the concerned Expert, the weapon is
in working condition and the crime-empty was fired therefrom. Moreover, the
medical evidence is in consonance with the ocular account and lends full
support to the case of the prosecution. It is also an admitted position that
the offence alleged against the applicant is punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, thereby attracting the prohibitory clause contained in
section 497, Cr.P.C. It is by now a well-settled
principle of law that while adjudicating upon a bail application, the Court is
required to make only a tentative assessment of the material on record, as a
deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at this stage. Prima facie,
sufficient material exists on record to connect the applicant/accused with the
commission of the alleged offence.
7. In
view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the applicant has failed to make
out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application
stands dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the
proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within a period of four (04)
months from today.
Needless to observe that any observation
made herein are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the determination
of facts at the trial, nor shall they influence the learned Trial Court in
reaching its decision on the merits of the case.
Bail
application stands disposed of accordingly.
J
U D G E