ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Application No. S- 100 of 2019

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of bail application

06-05-2019

Mr. Ghulam Mujtab Jakhar advocate for applicant.

Syed Sardar Ali Shah, DPG for the State

Complainant Muhammad Ayub in person.

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J; It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object caused lathies, Iron rod and fire shot injuries to PWs Rashid Ali, Muhammad Yasin, Ayaz Ali, Muhammad Ayub and Saddam Hussain with intention to commit their murder for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant on having been refused bail by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge Khairpur, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 497 Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party; the FIR has been lodged with the delay of one day; there is counter version of the incident and parties are already disputed. By contending so, he sought for release of applicant on bail on point of further inquiry.

4. Learned DPG for the State and complainant in person have sought for dismissal of instant bail application by contending that he is named in FIR with specific allegation, on arrest from his has been secured crime weapon and there is no counter version of the incident.

5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6. The name of the applicant is appearing in FIR with specific role that he caused fire shot injury to PW Saddam Hussain on his head with intention to commit his murder,. On arrest from the applicant, has been secured the crime weapon. In that situation, it would be premature to say that applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely. It is true that there is one day delay in lodgment of FIR, but there could made be no denial to the fact that, it is explained in the FIR itself. The priority with the applicant was to save the lives of injured. The delay in lodgment of the FIR even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. The FIR of the incident which is said to be counter version has been lodged with the delay of two months, which appears to be significant, same as such could hardly be said to be a counter version. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. No case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently the instant bail application is dismissed.

Judge

ARBROHI