ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr.   Bail  Appln.  No.S-720     of  2010.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

30.08.2011.

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For Hearing.

Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Ameer Ahmed Narejo, State Counsel.

                             --------------------

                   Through the instant application, applicant Safdar Ali Mugheri seeks post arrest bail in crime No.176/2010 of Police Station Shahdadkot, registered under Sections 302, 353, 324, PPC.

                   The brief facts giving rise to this application are that on 09.08.2010, at about 2.00 p.m., the applicant duly armed with pistol opened fire upon UTPs, namely, Akhtiar Bhayo and Abdul Razak Bhayo while they were brought at Court premises, under police escort.  However, the applicant was apprehended on the spot with the pistol.  Later-on, both the injured succumbed to their injuries.

                   It is, inter alia, contended by Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, learned Counsel for the applicant, that the F.I.R is belated by 45 minutes, whereas the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is only 02 furlongs; all the P.Ws are police personnel; none amongst the independent persons present at the place of occurrence has been cited as a witness.  In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied upon the case of Muhammad Rahim and others v. The State, 1996 P.Cr.L.J 1165.

                   On the other hand, Mr. Ameer Ahmed Narejo, learned State Counsel, opposed the bail plea of the applicant, on the ground that his name finds place in the F.I.R and he was apprehended on the spot with crime weapon.

                   Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

                   Upon a perusal of F.I.R it appears that name of the applicant appears in it.  At the time of incident he was armed with pistol and committed murders of UTPs Akhtiar Bhayo and Abdul Razak Bhayo while they were in police custody.  Apart from above, there is another aspect of the case that he committed double murder while UTPs were produced in Court.  Medical evidence also corroborates the ocular version.  With the profound respect, the law relied upon by the learned Counsel is distinguishable.  Since the prosecution has collected sufficient material connecting the applicant with the commission of offence and the manner in which the applicant has committed double murder and his arrest from the place of occurrence alongwith crime weapon, reflects that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has committed an offence, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.  Consequently, instant application merits no consideration and same is accordingly dismissed.

                                                                                                JUDGE