ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 01 of 2013.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

07.09.2015.

Messrs Saeed Ahmed Bijrani, and Shahbaz Ali Khan Brohi, Advocates for applicant.

Shahzado Saleem, A.P.G.

~~~~~~

Salahuddin Panhwar, J:   Through this application, applicant Ghous Bux Golato seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.138/2010, registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 114 P.P.C at Police Station Buxapur. His earlier bail plea was declined by the learned trial Court.

            The allegations against the applicant as per F.I.R lodged by complainant Abdul Shakoor on 18.9.2010 are that, he and co-accused Wazir Ahmed, Muhammad Panah, Sohrab and Yaqeen Ali caused hatchet blows to Muhammad Shahban on his head resulting into h is death on the spot.

            Record reveals that earlier bail application filed on behalf of applicant was dismissed by learned trial Court vide its order dated 20.9.2011; the applicant then approached this Court with same prayer, and this Court also declined bail to him vide Order dated 21.5.2012. However, directions were issued to the learned trial Court to record statements of material witnesses within four months. Then, applicant repeated bail application before learned trial Court, which has again been dismissed vide impugned Order.

            Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the applicant is in custody for more than two years; that trial Court has examined material witnesses, but there are material contradictions in their testimony, therefore, the case against applicant requires further enquiry; that benefit of doubt can be granted to the accused even at bail stage.

            On the other hand learned A.P.G. opposed bail plea of the applicant on the grounds that the delay in conclusion of the trial is attributable to the accused; that the material witnesses have been examined and there are some minor contradictions in their evidence which are bound to occur after lapse of time; that deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not allowed; that prosecution witnesses Abdul Shakoor and Muhammad Afzal have implicated  application in the commission of offence with specific role, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.

            Heard learned counsel. Perused record.

            Perusal of record reveals that first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by learned trial Court vide Order dated 20.9.2011; same prayer of the applicant was also declined by this Court with directions to learned trial Court to record evidence of material witnesses within four months. However, after recording of evidence of material witnesses the applicant again moved bail application before learned trial Court on fresh ground that there are material contradictions in between statements of prosecution witnesses. It reveals that complainant Abdul Shakoor and P.W Muhammad Afzal are consistent in respect of role of applicant in the commission of offence. Both have deposed that applicant instigated other accused and thereafter, he caused hatchet blows to deceased, which landed on his head. It is settled law that deeper appreciation is not allowed at bail stage. Learned counsel for applicant has raised the ground of delay in conclusion of trial. Perusal of case diaries shows that accused sought seven adjournments after directions issued by this Court, therefore the delay in conclusion of trial prima-facie is attributable to the accused.

            In view of above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail in his favour, hence bail application was dismissed vide short Order dated 07.09.2015, and these are the reasons for the same.

Dated:

                                                                                      Judge