ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-184 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

10.08.2020

Mr.Athar Abbas Solangi, Advocate for the applicant

                        Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Brohi, Advocate for complainant

                        Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

                        ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

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 Gulab Khan and Nizamuddin by causing them fire shot injuries and their went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail 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; the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of aerial firing and co-accused Abdul Hafeez alias Hafeez and Mukhtiar on filing of appeal have already been acquitted by this Court. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contention he has relied upon case of Qamar alias Mitho vs. The State and others (PLD 2012 SC-222).

4.        Learned DPG for the State and leaned counsel for the complainant have opposed to release of the applicant on bail by contending that the applicant has remained in absconsion for noticeable period of three years.

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

6.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about two days and such delay could not be lost sight of. The role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing. Co-accused Abdul Hafeez alias Hafeez and Mukhtiar who were awarded death penalty by learned trial Court have already been acquitted by this Court on filing of appeal. The parties are already disputed, therefore, sharing of common intention in commission of the incident on the part of applicant obviously is calling for further inquiry.

7.                In case of Mitho Pitafi vs. The State (2009 SCMR-299), it has been by the Honourable Apex Court that;

“Bail, grant of---Co-accused was released on bail by the Trial Court, but the concession of bail was declined to the accused petitioner on the ground that he was fugitive from law---High Court as well as the Trial Court had rejected the bail of petitioner on account of his absconsion and not on merits---Validity---Bail could be granted, if accused had good case for bail on merits and mere his absconsion would not come in the way while granting him bail---High Court had not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective while declining bail to the petitioner”.

8.                In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

9.                The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                               JUDGE