ORDER SHEET

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No. S-664 of 2017.

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

                       

Applicants:                         1. Shahid Hussain son of Ghulam Mustafa bycaste Rind, resident of village Fakir Muhammad Rind, Taluka Mirwah, District Khairpur.

                                                2. Saith Ali son of Ghulam Akbar bycaste Phull, Resident of village Kharira, Taluka Mirwah, District Khairpur.

                                                3. Ghulam Qasim son of Jamaluddin bycaste Khokhar, Resident of village Wali Muhammad Khokhar, Taluka Mirwah, District Khairpur.

 

                                                Miss Farzana Bhatti advocate for applicants.

 

Cr. Bail Application No. S-763 of 2017. 

 

Applicants                           Abdul Ghafoor son of Rahim Bux, bycaste Phull, Resident of village Wand Torpio, Taluka Mirwah, District Khairpur.

                                                      Mr. Shabbir Ali Bozdar advocate for applicant.

 

Respondent.                       The State.

                                                Mr. Bakhat Ali Rajper advocate for complainant.

                                                Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, Deputy Prosecutor General.

 

Date of hearing.    01-10-2018.

Date of Decision.   01-10-2018.

 

O R D E R.

 

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- By this common Order, I intend to dispose of the captioned bail applications arising out of one and same crime. Bail Application No.S-664/2017 is directed against the order dated                  31-10-2017 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge Khairpur, whereby the Pre-Arrest Bail Application of the applicants/accused Shahid Hussain, Saith Ali and Ghulam Qasim was dismissed. The Bail Application No.S-763/2017 is directed against the order dated 18-11-2017 whereby the Pre-Arrest Bail Application of applicant/accused Abdul Ghafoor Phull was dismissed by the same Court. 

2.         Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Mst. Amina Solangi lodged the F.I.R. on 05-10-2017 alleging therein that on the day of report they were sitting in their house. At about 4-00 pm accused  HC Shahid Hussain, PC Sajid Phull, PC Saith Ali Phull and Qasim Khokhar entered in to the house and accused Shahid Rind captured her husband Ali Murada and strangulated him and committed his murder and then all the accused persons escaped away from the spot. Ultimately complainant lodged the above said F.I.R.

3.         It is, inter-alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused that applicants/accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant in the FIR; that all the witnesses are closely related to the complainant and there is no any independent witnesses has been cited by the complainant; that except applicant/accused Shahid Rind, mere presence of the remaining applicants/accused has been shown by the complainant in the F.I.R. and no specific role has been attributed by the complainant against them; that deceased was habitual offender and he was involved in number of criminal cases and applicant/accused Shahid Rind and Ghulam Qasim are witnesses in Crime No. 225/2017; that the deceased had died due to his natural death and complainant has lodged false F.I.R. against the applicants/accused in order extort some money from them, therefore, the case of the applicants/accused requires for further enquiry and they are entitled for concession of bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon cases of Muhammad Aslam and another v. The S tate (2012 YLR 858), Riaz Ahmad v. The State (2009 SCMR 725), Zulqarnain v. The State (2016 YLR 183), Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (2017 YLR 441), and Muhammad Shahban v. The State (2012 YLR 858).

4.                     On the other, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant has argued that applicants/accused are nominated in the F.I.R. They duly armed with deadly weapons entered in the house of complainant and committed the murder of her husband Ali Murad; that F.I.R has been promptly lodged by the complainant; that after registration of F.I.R., I.O recorded 161 CrPC statements of PWs, who have fully supported the version of complainant. He has also placed on record number of F.I.Rs, in which applicant Shahid Hussain is involved. Lastly he prayed for dismissal of instant bail applications.

5.                     Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has also opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail of applicant/accused Shahid Hussain Rind on the ground that he is criminal and has been attributed specific role of committing murder of deceased. However, he recorded no objection for the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the remaining applicants/accused.

6.                     I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the applicants/accused, learned counsel for the complainant, learned APG for the State and have gone through the material available on the record with their assistance.

7.                     Perusal of record shows that mere presence of the applicants/accused Saith Ali, Ghulam Qasim and Abdul Ghafoor has been shown by the complainant in the F.I.R without attributing any injury to the deceased. The role assigned against applicants Saith Ali, Ghulam Qasim and Abdul Ghafoor is yet to be determined in the trial of the case. The question of vicarious liability and sharing of common intention in the incident cannot be decided at bail stage. The prosecution witnesses while making their statements in terms of section 161 Cr.PC have also narrated mere presence of the applicants at the spot. In this respect, reliance can be placed from the cases reported as Muhammad Sadique and others v. The State (1996 SCMR 1654) and Abdul Rehman v. Javed and others (2002 SCMR 1415). After grant of interim pre arrest bail, the applicants/accused have joined the trial and they have not misused the concession of interim pre arrest bail and their requires for further enquiry and they are also entitled for concession of same relief.

8.                     In view of above, the interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused Saith Ali, Ghulam Qasim and Abdul Ghafoor is confirmed on same terms and conditions and the above instant pre arrest bail applications stand disposed of accordingly.

9.                     As for as the case of applicant/accused Shahid Hussain Rind is concerned, the complainant has implicated him with specific role that he put his both hands into the neck of deceased Ali Murad and strangulated him. During investigation, the I/O has recorded 161 CrPC statements of PWs , who have also supported the version of complainant. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the complainant submits number of F.I.Rs, which shows that applicant Shahid Hussain being police officer is involved in number of criminal cases. Sufficient material is available on record which prima facie connect the applicant Shahid Hussain with the commission of offence. There is no mala fide on the part of the complainant nor Investigation Officer, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail and his pre arrest bail application is dismissed and interim order dated 01-11-2017 is hereby recalled to the extent of applicant/accused Shahid Hussain Rind.  In view of the above, both the above mentioned bail applications stands disposed off.

10.                  Needless to mention that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail applications.

                                                                                                                        Judge

                                                                                   

 

Nasim/P.A