ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No. S – 320 of 2016

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of main case

10.12.2018

Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Dayo Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<

Amjad Ali Sahito, J:- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, the applicant has sought post-arrest bail in Crime No.07/2013 of Police Station Leghari, District Naushahro Feroze for offences punishable under Section 17(4) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The bail application of the applicant/accused has been rejected by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Moro vide order dated 13.05.2016.

2. The facts of the prosecution case succinctly stated in the FIR lodged on 25.03.2013 at 2115 hours by one Muhammad Umar Bhatti at Police Station Leghari are that on the fateful night, he along with his brother Mehwal, son Ali Murad, maternal-uncle Mithal were returning to their village, when at about 09:00 p.m, they were confronted by accused Saeed, Ahsan and Ali Asghar having pistols, tried to rob them, with whom his brother Mithal resisted, on which accused Ali Asghar fired from his pistol upon him which hit on his chest, he fell-down, they raised cries and accused persons escaped away on their motorcycle. Thereafter they (complainant party) went over Mehwal and saw that he had firearm injury on his chest blow the left nipple and was bleeding and dead, while leaving the witnesses over the dead body, he appeared at police station and lodged FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that the applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant; that the applicant/accused is in jail since 27.03.2013, whereas, the trial has not yet been concluded, and it will take time, therefore, on the ground of hardship the applicant/accused is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Mst. Maria Khan v. The State and another (2013 SCMR 49); Attaullah v. The State (2004 P Cr. L J 326) [Karachi]; Raja Amanullah and another v. The State (2004 M L D 1817) [Karachi]; Mudassir Haneef v. The State (2007 P Cr. L J 1285) [Lahore];

4. On the other hand, learned DPG for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the applicants/accused and submitted that the impugned order is proper and does not call for any interference, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of instant revision application.

5. I have carefully heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is reflected from the contents of the FIR that the name of the applicant/accused transpired in the FIR. The allegation against the present applicants/accused is that he along with co-accused armed with T.T.Pistol attempted to commit robbery from the complainant party and on the resistance co-accused Ali Asghar directly fired from his pistol which hit brother of the complainant namely Mehwal, resultantly who died at the spot, hence the ingredients of Section 496 PPC are fully attracted to the case of present applicant. Moreover, the bail application No.572/2014 of co-accused Saeed Ahmed has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2014. Furthermore, all the material witnesses have been examined and trial is likely to be concluded in near future. In these circumstances, any observation regarding merit or otherwise at this stage would prejudice the case of either party. In this context, the reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2002 SCMR 1381), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-

“Since the trial is likely to be concluded in the near future as such, we are deliberately not attending to the merits of the case least it may prejudice the case of either party. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant concession of post-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage.”

6. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has failed to make out a case for grant of post-arrest bail to the present applicant/accused. Resultantly, the instant bail application merits no consideration, which is dismissed accordingly. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the matters and finalize the case within a period of two months. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel is on distinguished facts, hence cannot be relied upon.

7. Needless to mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the time of trial.

Judge

ARBROHI