ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-340 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

10.08.2020

Mr.Waqar Ahmed Chandio, Advocate for the applicant

                        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 Tawangar Khan, by causing him fire shot and iron rod injuries and then 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 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, 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 their old enmity with him; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about 01 ½ hours; co-accused Zahid has already been acquitted by learned trial Court and the applicant is in custody since eight months without any substantial trial. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further enquiry.  In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Mitho Pitafi vs. The State (2009 SCMR-299).

4.        Learned D.P.G. for the State has opposed to grant of bail to applicant by contending that the applicant has actively participated in commission of the incident by causing fire shot injuries to the deceased and his role is distinguishable to that of co-accused Zahid, who has already been acquitted by learned trial Court and he has remained in absconsion for more than seven years.

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

6.        The name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that he with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Tawangar Khan by causing him fire shot and iron rod injures. One of fire shot injury sustained by the deceased on his cheek is attributed to the applicant. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. No doubt, co-accused Zahid has been acquitted by learned trial Court but there could be made no denial to the fact that his case was distinguishable to that of the applicant, he was simply attributed the role of causing iron rod injuries to the deceased. The applicant may be in custody since eight months but such custody may hardly be taken as, reason to admit him to bail in case like present one, wherein he himself has preferred to go in absconsion for noticeable period of about seven years. The delay of about 01 ½ hour in lodgment of the FIR being natural could hardly be resolved by this Court in favour of the applicant, at this stage. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence for which he is charged.

7.        The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case the accused was found entitled to be released on bail on merit; it is why his absconsion was ignored. In the instant case, applicant is not found entitled to be released on bail on merits.

8.                    No case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed.

                                     J U D G E