ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-329 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

10.08.2020

Mr.Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for applicant

                        Mr. Akbar Ali Dahar, Advocate for the complainant

                        Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

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

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Amjad Ali alias Aamir by causing him fire shot injuries, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant, on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, 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 in order to satisfy its matrimonial dispute with him; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day and the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of his presence at the place of incident, therefore he is entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contention he has relied upon case of Abdul Aziz vs. The State (1996 SCMR-1693).

4.        Learned D.P.G for the State has recorded no objection to grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant while learned counsel for the complainant has objected to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he is involved in commission of the incident on point of vicarious liability and there is recovery of crime weapon from him. In support of his contention, he has relied upon case of Shoukat vs. The State (2010 MLD-1137).

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

6.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day 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 his presence allegedly at the place of incident. The parties are already disputed over matrimonial affairs. The pistol was recovered from the applicant on 05^th day of his arrest, which appears to be significant and the same even otherwise is not found to be matched with the empties secured from the place of incident. In these circumstances, the involvement of the applicant in this case is calling for further inquiry.  

7.        The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the accused facilitated the death by holding the hands of the deceased. In the instant case, there is no such allegation against the applicant.

8.        In view of above, while referring to the case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- 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