ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail A. No. S-99 of 2018

Date	Order with signature of Judge

For orders on office objection

For hearing

26.03.2018

Mr. Shoukat Ali Makwal Advocate for applicant

Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi DPG

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

Irshad Ali Shah J.     The facts in brief for disposal of instant bail application are that police party of PS Economic Zone Tando Masti led by ASI Niaz Muhammad while patrolling came to know through spy information that Mst.Komal is being killed by her father Ghulam Akbar and husband Gulzar Mari by declaring her to be ‘Kari’. On such information said police party proceeded to the pointed place and reached there where they found co-accused Ghulam Akbar causing hatchet blows to a Mst. Komal while present applicant was found standing there. The said accused finding the police party near to them made to escape good. Mst. Komal died at the spot. The incident was reported by complainant ASI Niaz Muhammad on behalf of the State. Both the above said accused were apprehended and then challaned.

                      The present applicant sought for his release on bail from the trial court by filing an application u/s 497 Cr.PC. It was dismissed by the trial court. He now sought for his release on bail from this Court by way of instant application u/s 497 Cr.PC.

                      It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police; his role is only to the extent of his presence; there is conflict between medical and ocular evidence; there is no independent witness to the incident. By stating so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contention he relied upon case of Muhammad Iqbal @ Bala Bandri v. The State, which is reported in 2017 SCMR 1939, Muhammad Irfan v. The State, which is reported in 2014 SCMR 1347, Basharat Hussain v. Ghulam Hussain Etc, which is reported 1978 SCMR 357, Hassan v. The State, which is reported on 1969 SCMR 454 and Wazir Muhammad v. The State, which is reported on 1978 SCMR 448.

                      By making rebuttal to above contention, learned DPG has opposed to grant of bail to the present applicant by contending that he has actively participated in the commission of offence by facilitating co-accused Ghulam Akbar to commit murder of Mst. Komal by causing her hatchet injuries after declaring her as ‘Kari’.

                      I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                      The name of present applicant/accused is appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that he called his father in law co-accused Ghulam Akbar at his house and then held consultation with him and then killed Mst. Komal by causing hatchet injuries to her after declaring her to be ‘Kari’. In that situation, it would be pre-mature to say that the present applicant is innocent or has been involved in this case falsely. No doubt the role attributed to present applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of his presence at the place of incident but there could be made no denial to the fact that it was he who called co-accused Ghulam Akbar at his house held consultation with him, then facilitated him to commit murder of Mst. Komal after declaring her to be ‘Kari’ which constitute an act of common intention/vicarious liability on his part. It is wrong to say that there is no independent witness to the incident. All police officials are appearing to be the independent witnesses. They indeed are having no reason to involve the present applicant in this case falsely. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the present applicant is guilty of the offence with which he is charged.

                      In case law which is relied by the learned counsel for the present applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In none of that law, the accused involved facilitated murder of his wife after declaring her to be ‘Kari’.

                      In view of the above, it could be concluded safely that no case for grant of bail to the present applicant is made out, his application for release him on bail is rejected.

                                                                                      JUDGE

Rafi