ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.
Crl:
Bail Application No.D- 506 of 2014
DATE ORDER WITH
SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
Present:-
Mr.JusticeAqeel Ahmed Abbasi&
Mr. GhulamQadirLeghari, JJ.
FOR
HEARING
17th.
December, 2015.
Mr.
IrshadHussainDharejo, Advocate for Applicant
Mr.
Mehboob Ali Wassan, Advocate for Complainant.
Mr.
Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, D.P.G for State.
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J:- Instant bail application has been filed pursuant to
order dated 09.8.2014 passed by Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur Mir’s in
Special Case No. 27 of 2013 emanating from Crime No.54 of 2013 registered at
Police Station, Qumb, District Khairpur Mir’s under sections 302, 452,
337-H(2), 148, 149 PPC & 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, whereby the bail
application of applicant/accused namely Pervaiz Ahmed S/o LalGulGopang, has
been dismissed.
2. It
is, inter-alia, contended by learned Counsel for applicant that applicant is
innocent who has been falsely implicated in the instant crime at the behest of
complainant party who belonged to ruling party of the Province of Sindh,
whereas, there is counter version of the incidence which took place on
16.5.2013 when during procession of PML(F) the brother of present applicant
namely FerozeGulGopang was murdered by the complainant party, however, no F.I.R
was registered by the police, but
supported the complainant party. Whereafter, an application U/s 22-A &
22-B, Cr.P.Cwas filed before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace who issued
directions for registration of F.I.R, however, such order has been assailed
before this Court which is still pending. Per learned Counsel, the applicant
along with his father namely LalGulGopang have been implicated in the instant
crime with malafide intentions to restrain the applicant from pursuing the
F.I.R about murder of his brother. Per learned Counsel the trial has not proceeded
so far, as no witnesses has been examined by the complainant party and the
applicant is behind the bars since his arrest on 29.5.2013. It is further
contended by learned Counsel that the allegations as contained in F.I.R
regarding role of the present applicant have been contradicted by post-mortem
report which reflects that there was no hatchet injury on the body of the
deceased ShamsuddinWassan. Per learned Counsel, the matter requires further
inquiry and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his
contentions, learned Counsel has also placed reliance in the case of Syed
Abdul Baqi Shah v. The State reported as 1997 S C M R 32 and case of Khalid
Mehmood& another v. Muhammad KashifRasool& others reported as 2013 S C
M R 1415.
3. Conversely,
learned Counsel for the complainant opposes the grant of bail to the applicant,
on the ground that the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R with specific
role, whereas, recovery of hatchet has also been affected from the applicant,
who with common intention, committed murder of deceased ShamsuddinWassan, thus
created terror while putting the dead body of the deceased on National Highway Qumb city. Per learned Counsel, deeper appreciation at
this stage cannot be made, hence requests that bail application filed by the
applicant may be dismissed.
4. Learned
D.P.G supports the contentions of learned Counsel for the complainant and
submits that since the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R with specific
role, which reflects common intention to commit murder of the deceased and
there are eye-witnesses, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.
In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the complainant as well as
learned D.P.G relied upon the case reported as 2012 SLJ 1015 = 2012 Y L R 983.
We
have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fact
regarding murder of brother of the applicant namely FerozeGul on the date of
incidence has not been denied by the learned Counsel for the complainant and
D.P.G, nor the post-mortem report of the deceased namely ShamsuddinWassan,
wherein it has been stated that there is no hatchet injury on the body of the
deceased, has been disputed and the cause of death appears to be on account of
firearm injuries, whereas, the applicant is behind the bars since 29.5.2013 and
the prosecution has not proceeded with the trial as no prosecution witness has
been examined so far. In view of herein
above, facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that applicant has made-out
a case for further inquiry. Accordingly, applicant is granted bail in the sum
of Rs.100,000/- (One Lac) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction
of learned trial Court. Needless to mention here that the
observations made herein above are tentative in nature and shall not influence
the trial.
JUDGE
JUDGE
A.R.BROHI