IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

 

Crl. Bail Application No.S-596 of 2025

 

    

DATE OF

HEARING

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

1.    For orders on O/objection at flag-A.

2.    For hearing of post-arrest bail.

 

 

 

Date of hearing     09.10.2025.

 

 

Mr. Abdul Sattar Mahessar, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Shamshad Ahmed Siyal, Advocate for complainant

Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Shaikh, D.P.G for State.

                         ********

 

 

                                                O R D E R

 

         

 

          The present bail has been sought by the applicant  in Crime No.130 of 2022 registered at Police Station, Kumb u/s 302, 324, 148, 149, 114 PPC wherein the case reporting death of one person and fire arm injuries to the other the present applicant has been attributed as to the involvement directly alongwith the other co-accused by name.

 

          Learned counsel for the applicant contends that record shows that there is free will allegation was made against the claim wife of the complainant and that his role is that of instigation only. He further contends that the allegation though made in the FIR of direct firing by persons memo shows that only one fire on the deceased was present. He also contends that as to the aerial firing no empties have been recovered and that no repeated firing has also been alleged. That during investigation the present applicant was declared innocent however, was joined by the concerned Magistrate. It is also contended that co-accused Zulfiqar Ali and Abdul Ghafoor have been granted bail. He submits   Photostat copy of the bail order. It is also contended that allegations against the present applicant are unimaginable having gone to house of the complainant whose alleged wife was said to be having free will marriage with the present applicant. It is also contended that it is un-understandable that no harm was caused to the male persons and as such the whole version of the FIR has become doubtful creating ground of further inquiry.

 

          Learned counsel for the complainant however, contends that     para-4 of the bail application specifies the FIR wherein adverse order against the complainant thereof relative of the applicant had caused the incident. It is also contended that recovery of the empties of the weapon alleged on the present applicant was found at the site. Learned counsel also contends that the learned trial Court in the bail rejection order had specified that the applicant was connected to the incident. He also contends that the bail granted to the co-accused had come-up in the further statement and their role in the matter is different from the present applicant. Learned counsel further contended that the persons having granted concession are abusing the process and restricting the proceedings of the trial. Learned counsel lastly contended that in the post-mortem four injuries have been shown. He relied upon cases reported in 2022 SCMR 750, 2022 SCMR 1299.

 

          Learned Deputy Prosecutor General contended that the present applicant has been specifically nominated and active role has been attributed to him as such he is an abettor as well as having direct involvement. It is also contended that post-mortem shows four fire arm injuries and the applicant has been attributed thereto. It is also contended that the accused Nizar alias Nizar Ali was not entertained for pre-arrest bail and this Court had dismissed his application.

          In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant contended that specific firing has not been attributed in the present applicant. Learned counsel relied upon following authorities in support of entitlement of bail.

1.   2023 P.Cr.LJ 323,

2.   2021 SCMR 87.

 

          Having heard the counsels and gone through the record. While reiterating that at bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made apparently the present applicant existing of the weapons alleged has been brought-up by way of recovery of empties apart from the same the dead body in respect of which four injuries are attributed in the MLO the present applicant has failed to show non-connectivity with the alleged offence presently and accordingly where the trial has not proceeded no ground apparently is found whereby the case against the present applicant can be treated is that of further inquiry. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. Though, learned counsel for applicant had not entertained a direction in the interest of justice requires that such a directions be issued, accordingly, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the matter of evidence within a period of Four(04) months’.

 

          Needless to mention here that observation as above are tentative in nature and not meant to affect merits of the case before the learned trial Court.

 

Bail applications stands disposed of in the above terms.

 

 

                                                                                      J U D G E

 

Ihsan/PS.