ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

Criminal Bail. Appl. No.S-93/2010

 

Order with signature of Judge

 

 

10.08.2010

 

Mr. Noor-ul-Haque Qureshi Advocate for Applicant.

Syed Meeral Shah Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh

 

                        :::::::::::::::

 

Ahmed Ali Shaikh J:           Through this application, applicant Shahid Ali seeks post arrest bail in crime No.15/2008 of P.S. Khadro registered u/s 302, PPC.

2.         The applicant/accused approached the trial court but his bail plea was turned down by trial court vide order dated 17.12.2009.

3.         The contents of prosecution case in nut shell are that on 02.06.2008 at 0115 hours, complainant Dost Muhammad and his brother Muhammad Hussain woke up on fire shots and in the light of electric bulbs, they saw accused Shahid Ali duly armed with pistol was firing upon deceased Ali Nawaz Pathan and co-accused Jamshed Ahmed, Noor Hussain, Muhammad Yousif, Hassan Dost and Jehangir were standing there being empty handed. Being empty handed, the complainant party did not interrupt them. All the accused went away towards eastern side. The complainant found that Ali Nawaz Pathan had received fire arm injuries and he was died.

4.         It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case due to some settlement of account. Per learned counsel, the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offence but with connivance of the police, the complainant has involved the applicant in this concocted case. It is urged with vehemence that there is contradiction in memo of recovery of pistol and letter dated 30.10.2008 of SIO. Per learned counsel the examination report of Assistant Inspector General of Police, Criminalistic Division Sindh Karachi also creates doubt about the prosecution case with regard to recovery of pistol as in memo of recovery, pistol has been shown without number whereas in subsequent letters number of pistol has been shown as “One 30 bore pistol bearing No.PAC-95011 alongwith magazine”. Per learned counsel in view of the above inconsistency no sanctity can be attached with the prosecution case and the case of the applicant requires further inquiry..

 

5.         Conversely, Syed Meeral Shah Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh for the State opposed the bail application on the ground that the name of the applicant appears in the F.I.R. with specific role and he is responsible for committing murder of deceased as complainant as well as P.W Muhammad Hussain have fully implicated him in the F.I.R. as well as 161 Cr.P.C statement. Per learned Deputy Prosecutor General post mortem report also corroborates the ocular version.

 

6.         Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

 

7.         The name of the applicant transpires in the F.I.R. with specific role. In the F.I.R., it is categorically stated that the accused committed murder of deceased by causing him fire arm injuries. The medical evidence also corroborates the ocular version furnished by the complainant and P.W. Muhammad Hussain. So for the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there is discrepancy with regard to number and description of alleged pistol recovered from the applicant is concerned, such contention requires deeper appreciation of evidence. It is well settled law that while deciding bail application deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible.

8.         For the foregoing reasons and material collected during the course of investigation, I am of the opinion that prima-facie case exists against the applicant and he does not deserve the concession of bail. The bail application being meritless is dismissed. The above findings are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either side.

 

                                                                                    JUDGE

A.K