IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

 

Crl. Bail Application No. D-254 of 2019

 

 

Present:- Adnan-ul-Karim Memon &

                                                Yousuf Ali Sayeed, JJ

 

 

Applicant               :        Abdul Shakoor Jamro through Mr. Nisar Ahmed Bambhro, Advocate

 

The State               :        Through Shafi Mohammad Mahar, DPG

 

Complainant          :        Nemo

 

 

Date of hearing      :        23.07.2020.

 

 

 

ORDER

 

YOUSUF ALI SAYEED, J -      The Applicant seeks bail in respect of FIR No.10/2018 registered under Sections 302, 212, 120-B, 148, 149 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at P.S. F. M. Narejo, Khairpur on 28.08.2018 at 2:15 PM, which is the subject of Special Case No.56/2018 (Re: The State v. Abdul Shakoor and others) pending before the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur Mirs, with an earlier attempt in that regard before the trial Court failing to yield a positive result.

 

2.     Concisely, the gist of the allegations contained in the FIR, to the extent that is germane for purposes of the matter at hand, are that an attack is said to have been staged after sunset on 27.08.2018 by a group of thirteen persons carrying firearms at the Otaaq of the Complainant, one Shahnawaz Bhutto, who allegedly opened fire upon him and his male relatives present, with one of his nephews as well as a cousin receiving multiple bullet injuries, to which they succumbed on the spot, with the assailants said to have then left the scene whilst engaging in aerial firing.

3.     The attack is said to have been precipitated by a feud ensuing from an encounter that took place on 07.10.2016 between a police party including a relative of the complainant and a group of persons including relatives of the Otaaq attackers, resulting in fatalities on both sides and giving rise to the registration of FIR No. 23/2016 at P.S. Faiz Muhammad Narejo, due to which threats of retribution had been made coupled with demand for withdrawal of that case. However, the Applicant is not stated to have been one of those who actively participated in the alleged attack at the Otaaq, or to have extended the threats made with reference to the subject of FIR No. 23/2016 seeking its withdrawal, but is instead accused of having been its mastermind and instigator, on the basis of his having been observed roaming in the vicinity for a few days prior to the attack and on the basis of the complainant’s claim that he had come to know that he had been in telephonic contact with one of the assailants, namely Sain Bux.

 

 

4.     Notice on the Application had been issued to the Complainant, who appeared on 20.05.2020 and sought time to engage counsel, but remained absent thereafter without any representation forthcoming on his behalf.

 

 

5.     Proceeding with the matter, learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was innocent and had been falsely implicated due to personal enmity of the complainant. He argued that even on the basis of what was stated in the FIR, there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant had played any part in the commission of the alleged offence as the FIR did not disclose his presence at the scene of the attack, but randomly reflected him as being the instigator and facilitator thereof, that too on the mere basis of the complainant’s claim to knowledge of the allegedly incriminating telephonic contact between him and Sain Bux, without the source of such knowledge being divulged.

6.     On query posed as to the material, if any, which had been collected so as to implicate the Applicant, the learned DPG stated that there was only the CDR of the mobile phones in the use of the Applicant and Sain Bux, which reflected that they had been in contact between 01.01.2018 to 30.08.2018. Under such circumstances, he quite fairly did not oppose the plea for bail.

 

 

7.     Indeed, having considered the matter, we are of the view that the probative value of the CDR or even the evidentiary value of the complainants statement as to the presence of the Applicant in the vicinity in the days prior to the attack is a matter that would properly fall to be determined in the ultimate analysis at the conclusion of the trial when the sum total of the evidence is examined in its proper perspective, but at present the CDR or the statement of the complainant of itself only shows that calls were made but does not establish the purpose, hence is not sufficient to implicate the Applicant, who otherwise has not been shown to have any active role in the attack or even to have made the threats said to have been meted out in relation to FIR No. 23/2016. Suffice it to say, that from the standpoint of the Applicant, the matter appears to require further inquiry. That being so, the Applicant has succeeded in making out a case for bail. Accordingly, the Application is allowed, with it being ordered that the Applicant be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand) and P.R. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

 

 

8.     Needless to say, the observations made herein above are tentative in nature and ought not to prejudice the final adjudication of the case from the standpoint of any party.

 

 

                                                                                      JUDGE

                                                          JUDGE