IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-221 of 2018

Applicant               :                Nazir son of Allah Bux Shar

Through Mr.Abdul Hameed,      Advocate

State                              :                  Through Mr.Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G.

Date of hearing   :                  26.11.2018          

Date of order      :                  26.11.2018

O R D E R

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, committed Qatl-e-
Amd of Muhammad Azam, by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2.                On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 5ht Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 497 Cr.PC.

3.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party, there is delay of about three days in lodgment of the FIR, the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing to create harassment and he on investigation was let-off by the police by placing his name in Column No.2 of the charge sheet. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further enquiry.

4.                Learned A.P.G has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident by making aerial firing.

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

6.                Admittedly, there is three days delay in lodgment of the FIR; such delay could not be lost sight of. The specific role of causing death of the said deceased is attributed to co-accused Nisar, Sanaullah and Hafeez. The role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing to create harassment. The applicant on investigation was found to be innocent and his name was kept in Column No.2 of the charge sheet by the police itself. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on point of further enquiry.

7.                In view of facts and reasons discussed above, 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.  

8.                The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                            J U D G E

..