IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-267 of 2018

Applicant               :                Sajid son of Shaman Marfani

Through Mr.Asif Ali Abdul Razzaq Soomro, Advocate

Complainant                          Wazir Hussain through

Mr.Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate 

State                    :                  Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G.

Date of hearing   :                  10.10.2018

Date of order      :                   10.10.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the present applicant with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by committing trespass into house of complainant party, committed death of Safeer Ahmed and Shabir Ahmed, by causing them fire shot injuries and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered against them.

2.                On arrest, the applicant sought for his release on bail by filing an application u/s.497 Cr.PC. It was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Qamber, and now the applicant by way of instant application u/s.497 Cr.PC has sought for the same from this Court.

3.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party, his identity under light of bulb is weak piece of evidence; there is no disclosure of bulb in mashirnama of place of incident; 161 Cr.PC statement of PWs are recorded with two days delay even to FIR and no effective role in commission of the incident is attributed to the applicant. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further enquiry. In support of his contentions, he relied upon cases of Nisar Ahmed Vs. The State (2014 SCMR-27) and Wajid Ali Vs. the State (2017 SCMR-116).

4.                Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant by making rebuttal to above contentions have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident by making aerial firing and on arrest from him has been secured incriminating pistol.

5.                In rebuttal to above, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the pistol has been foisted upon him by the police only to strengthen its case.         

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

7.                The specific role by committing death of deceased Safeer Ahmed and Shabir Ahmed by causing them fire shot injuries is attributed to co-accused Manthar and Ashiq. The role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent that he made aerial firing. In these circumstances the guilt of the applicant obviously is calling for further enquiry, he could hardly be denied bail on point of recovery of incriminating pistol, which is alleged to be foistatoin.

8.                In view of above, while relying upon case law which is referred by learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

9.                The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                            J U D G E