ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-253 of 2020

DATE                          ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application.

21.05.2020.

Mr. Shahbaz Ali Brohi, Advocate for the applicant.

Complainant Mst.Sadori in person

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G for the State.

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

Irshad Ali Shah-J: It is alleged that applicant with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Munawar Ali, by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by making fires in air to create harassment,      for that the present case was registered.

2.       The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, vide his order dated 05.05.2020, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 497 Cr.P.C.

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 in order to satisfy its old enmity with him; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about one day and no active role in commission of the incident is attributed to the applicant; complainant Mst.Sadori and PWs Mst.Nazima and Mst.Zulekhan have recorded their no objections to grant of bail to the applicant by filing their affidavits by stating therein that he was neither identified by them at the time of incident nor was named in the FIR, therefore, the applicant according to him is entitled to grant of bail on point of further inquiry.

4.       Learned D.P.G. for the State, who is assisted by complainant Mst.Sadori, has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant.

5.       Heard arguments and perused the record.

6.       The specific role of committing death of the deceased by causing him fire shot injuries is attributed to co-accused Asghar Ali and Babu alias Gouro; the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making fires in air to create harassment, therefore, the vicarious liability on his part obviously is calling for its determination at trial; the complainant and her witnesses as are named above by filling their affidavits have also recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant by stating therein that he was neither identified by them nor was named in the FIR.  In these circumstances, the guilt of the applicant is calling for further inquiry.

7.                In case of Muhammad Najeeb Vs. The State        (2009 SCMR-448), it has been held by Hon’able Apex Court that;

“complainant initially had nominated the accused in the FIR but later-on through an affidavit he has expressed his satisfaction with regard to innocence of the accused, the case of the accused was of further enquiry”.

8.       In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

9.                The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                         J U D G E