ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-287 of 2020
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
For hearing of bail application.
20.08.2020
Mr.Ghulam Rasool Narejo, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant bail application are that Mst.Inayat Khatoon on having been abducted was secured by police in FIR Crime No.25/2019, under section 365-B PPC of P.S Ratodero and then after recording her statement under section 164 Cr.PC was let to go with her brother-in-law Israr Ahmed. Subsequently, she was killed by the applicant after declaring her to be “Kari”, by causing her fire shot injuries, for that the present case was registered by the police on behalf of the State.
2. The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, 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; his identity at night time is appearing to be weak piece of evidence and on successive investigation co-accused Raees Raham Ali and Sajjad Ali have been let-off by the police finding them to be innocent and legal heirs of the deceased have pardoned the applicant. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail as according to him his case is calling for further enquiry. In support of his contention, he has relied upon cases of Shafaqat alias Gunga and 02 others vs. The State (1994 SCMR-1680), 2).Mst.Afsar Bibi vs. The State (2005 PCr.LJ-164) and 3). Allah Ditto and another Vs. The State (2011 PCr.LJ-485).
4. Learned D.P.G. for the State has objected to release of the applicant on bail by contending that he has committed the death of an innocent lady in very brutal manner by causing her fire shot injuries, after declaring her to be “Kari”.
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 committed murder of Mst.Inayat Khatoon by causing her fire shot injuries after declaring her to be “Kari”. The complainant being police officer obviously was having no reason to have involved the applicant in this case falsely at the cost of life of an innocent lady. If the complainant was able to identify the applicant at night time, then such identity should not be doubted at this stage. On arrest from the applicant has been secured the incriminating pistol, which has been found to be similar with the empties secured from the place of incident. If it is believed that on consecutive investigation, co-accused Raees Raham Ali and Sajjad Ali have been let-off by the police, even then such fact is not enough to enlarge the applicant on bail, simply for the reason that his case is distinguishable to them. No legal heir of the deceased has come forward before this Court to pardon the applicant. The deeper appreciation of facts and circumstances even otherwise are not permissible at bail stage. It would be pre-mature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police. 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 case of “Shafaqat alias Gunga and 02 others” (supra), the accused was admitted to bail by Honourable Apex Court mainly for the reason that he was attributed causing role of ineffective firing upon the complainant. In the instant case, the specific role of committing murder of Mst.Inayat Khatoon by causing her fire shot injuries is attributed to the applicant. In case of “Mst.Afsar Bibi” (supra), the main reason for admitting the accused to bail was that she was female and there were different versions about her involvement in the incident. In the instant case, the applicant from day one is specifically involved in commission of the incident, subsequent and consecutive investigation has got no bearing on his case. In case of “Allah Ditto and another” (supra), the accused was admitted to bail mainly for the reason that there was unexplained and inordinate delay in lodgment of the FIR. In the instant case, there is no delay in lodgment of the FIR.
8. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, it is concluded safely that no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed.
J U D G E