ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. App. No. D – 388 of 2019

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of main case

21.01.2020

Mr. Ali Raza Baloch, Advocate for applicant / complainant.

Mr. Shabbir Ali Bozdar, Advocate for respondent No.2 / accused.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy Prosecutor General.

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

Through the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application, applicant / complainant Daud Khan Rajper seeks cancellation of the bail granted to respondent / accused Shakeel Ahmed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Naushahro Feroze vide his order dated 30.05.2019.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant / complainant contended that deceased was the media person and he had flashed news against respondent / accused Shakeel Ahmed; that deceased was attacked by the accused persons under his influence. It is further argued that learned trial Court dismissed pre-arrest bail application on 20.05.2019 and recalled interim pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent / accused. It is further argued that within 10 days in hasty manner, post-arrest bail was granted to him by trial Court. It is submitted that learned trial Court was not justified to grant post-arrest bail to the respondent / accused without sound reasons. Learned counsel for applicant / complainant lastly prayed for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent / accused by the learned trial Court.

3. Mr. Shabbir Ali Bozdar, learned advocate for the complainant, assisted by Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG, argued that respondent Shakeel was not present at the time of incident. It is further argued that allegation of instigation / conspiracy requires evidence. It is submitted that concession of the bail, which has been extended to the respondent, has not been misused by accused. Lastly, it is submitted that most of the evidence has been recorded before the learned trial Court, and Criminal Miscellaneous Application is without merit.

4. We have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused order dated 30.05.2019 passed by learned trial Court. Trial Court vide order dated 30.05.2019, has granted post-arrest bail to respondent / accused for the following reasons:

“Heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned APG for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and perused the police papers. It is a case of prosecution that applicant/accused time and again issued threats to deceased of his murder through co-accused Habib Rajpar, but no such complaint was made by the deceased with police. The motive shown by the prosecution that deceased has published reports of the public complaints against the applicant/accused being Chairman Town Committee Padidan. The I.O has collected only three press reports published in newspaper Daily Awami Awaz of general allegations regarding sanitary and low standard material used in construction work, but no allegation of corruption has been leveled against applicant/accused. Admittedly neither applicant/accused was available at spot at the time of commission of offence nor complainant or any witness has stated during the course of investigation that in their presence applicant/accused made abatement to co-accused Habib Rajpar. The investigation officer has collected CDR of cell phone of applicant/accused which also shows that he has not remained in contact with main accused Habib Rajpar. Admittedly applicant/accused is elected Chairman of Town Committee Padidan, therefore, his involvement in the FIR due to political rivalry cannot be ruled out. At this stage applicant/accused has made out case for further inquiry, as such he is allowed bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount.”

5. Admittedly, after grant of bail, concession of the bail has not been misused by the respondent / accused. There is nothing on record to show that respondent / accused has attempted to temper with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Allegation against respondent / accused is of instigation / abetment. Admittedly, he was not present at the time of incident. Trial Court has granted bail to respondent / accused by sound reasons. There is no merit in the application for cancellation of the bail, particularly in the circumstances when the trial is in the progress.

6. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is without merit, and the same is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to decide the case expeditiously.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit