ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S- 22 of 2020

 

Date                         Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

 

For hearing of bail application

22.06.2020

            Mr. Wazir Ahmed Ghoto Advocate for applicants

            Mr. Ubedullah Ghoto Advocate for the complainant

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah J; It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention not only committed Qatl-e-Amd of Mir Bux by causing him dagger blows but also caused dagger blow to PW Zakir Hussain boy aged about 8/9 years with intention to commit  his murder, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicants on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1st. Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC), Ghotki, have 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 applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy their old dispute with them; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about 18 hours; the role attributed to applicant Muhammad Siddique in common to the incident is only to the extent that he caught hold of the deceased at the time of his death while role attributed to applicant Rafique is only to the extent that he caused dagger blow to PW Zakir Hussain and it was night time incident, therefore, identity of the applicants under the light of bulb was doubtful. By contending so, he prayed for grant of post-arrest bail to the applicants on point of further inquiry. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Mumtaz Hussain and 05 others vs. The State                   (1996 SCMR 1125)

4.        Learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in commission of incident. In support of their contention, they relied upon case of Bahadur vs. Muhammad Latif and others (1987 SCMR 788).

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

6.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 18 hours; it was night time incident, therefore, the identity of the applicants under the light of bulb is appearing to be a weak piece of evidence. The role attributed to applicant Muhammad Siddique is only to the extent that he caught hold legs of the deceased at the time of his murder, therefore, sharing of common intention in commission of incident on his part obviously is calling for further inquiry. The role attributed to applicant Rafique is to the extent that he caused dagger blow to PW Zakir Hussain a boy aged about 8/9 years, he obviously was having no reason to have caused dagger blow to boy aged about 8/9 years leaving the complainant and his adult PWs to remain safe. No injury even otherwise has been repeated by him. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended that the applicants that they are entitled to grant of post arrest bail on point of further inquiry.

7.        The case law which is relied upon by learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case accused Abdul Latif was attributed specific role of causing fireshot injury to the deceased, it was day time incident and FIR was lodged promptly and for this reason his bail was cancelled by Honourable Supreme Court. In the instant case, the FIR is lodged with delay of about 18 hours and it was night time incident and no injury to the deceased is attributed to either of the applicants.

8.        In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.300,000/- (Rupees three lac) each and P.R bond to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

9.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

 

       Judge

ARBROHI