ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-238 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

08.10.2020

Mr.Zafar Ali Malgani, Advocate for the applicants

                        Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, 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, by keeping complainant Mst.Fateh Khatoon and her witnesses under wrongful restraint and fear of death, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Aslam, by causing him fire shot injures and then went away by making fires in air to create harassment and then caused disappearance of the evidence by throwing dead body of the deceased in water in order to save them from legal consequences, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 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 its dispute with him; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about three days;            co-accused Muhammad Qasim and Muhammad Hashim have already been admitted to bail; the complainant and PWs are related inter-se, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail as his case is calling for further inquiry.

4.        Learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident by causing fire shot injuries to the deceased and his case is distinguishable to that of co-accused Muhammad Qasim and Muhammad Hashim.

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

6.        The applicant is named in the FIR with specific allegation that he committed Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Aslam, by causing him fire shot injuries and on arrest from him, has been secured the incriminating pistol, which has been found similar with the empties secured from the place of incident. 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. The delay in lodgment of the FIR is explained plausibly in FIR itself and such delay even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court in favour of the applicant at this stage. No doubt, co-accused Muhammad Qasim and Muhammad Hashim have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court but their case is distinguishable to that of the applicant. The complainant and PWs may be related inter-se but their relationship is not enough to disbelieve them at this stage. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence for which he is charged.

7.                    In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, it could be 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