ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 335 of 2011.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
1. For orders on office objection.
2. For hearing.
04.11.2011.
Mr. Sarfraz Khan Jatoi, Advocate for applicant.
Miss Rubina Dhamrah, State counsel.
~~~~
Ahmed Ali M. Sheikh, J: Applicant Riaz Hussain Khoso alongwith others has been booked in crime No.59/2007, of P.S Rehmatpur, Larkana, registered under section 302, 148, 149 P.P.C. Through instant application he seeks post arrest bail, as his bail plea has been turned down by the trial Court vide order dated 24.5.2011.
2. Mr. Sarfraz Khan Jatoi, learned counsel for the applicant contended that F.I.R is belated by one hour and 20 minutes though distance between place of occurrence and police station is hardly one kilometer; 161 Cr.P.C statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded on 16.10.2007, whereas alleged incident had taken place on 15.10.2007. He further contended that per memo of site inspection only three empties were recovered, whereas five persons have been nominated in the F.I.R and allegation against them is that they all caused firearm injuries with their respective weapons to the deceased. He further contended that fatal shot is not attributed to the present applicant, but he has been implicated due to enmity. He further contended that no incriminating article has been recovered. Learned counsel lastly contended that applicant is behind bars for about two years and trial has not concluded as yet. In support of his contention he has relied upon case of Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others V. The State (1996 SCMR 1125).
3. Conversely, Miss Rubina Dhamrah learned State counsel opposed the bail plea on the ground that name of the applicant finds place in the F.I.R; he alongwith co-accused made straight fire upon deceased and committed his murder. She further contended that after incident applicant became absconder and subsequently he was arrested on 02.01.2009, therefore, question of recovery does not arise.
4. Heard learned counsel and perused the record.
5. According to prosecution case this unhappy episode took place on 15.10.2007, whereby deceased lost his life at the hands of accused. F.I.R was lodged on same day after one hour and twenty minutes. Perusal of the F.I.R reveals that on the day of incident accused, each Riaz Hussain, Suhno, Mumtaz, Asfar and Ali Asghar duly armed with pistols committed murder of deceased Mohammad Khan alias Rehmatullah by causing him firearm injuries. So for the delay in lodging the F.I.R is concerned, in the given circumstances it is not fatal to the prosecution case. As for as non recovery of crime weapon is concerned, the trial Court has very rightly observed that due to absconsion of the accused no recovery of crime weapon has been affected from him. Besides this, the applicant remained absconder for about two years. Apart from above, the impugned order reflects that the complainant as well as prosecution witnesses are in attending the Court regularly but applicant under one or other pretext is avoiding to proceed with the case. With profound respect the law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable and is not helpful for him. In the reported case the allegation against the accused was that they caused blunt side of the hatchet injury to the deceased, whereas in the case in hand it is specifically alleged that applicant alongwith his companions caused firearm injuries to the deceased.
6. The upshot of above discussion is that prosecution has collected sufficient material connecting the applicant with commission of the offence with which he is charged and is punishable with death and imprisonment for life and there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he has nexus with the said offence. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant bail application, which is accordingly dismissed. However, observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice case of either party.
Judge
Ansari/*