ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-346 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

08.10.2020

Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, Advocate for the applicant

                        Mr. Ahsan Ahmed Qureshi, 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 making trespass into house of complainant Mst.Rasheeda, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Mst.Maira aged about 11/12 years and Mst.Soonh, aged about 9/10 years,       by causing them fire shot injuries in order to satisfy old enmity with them and then went away by making fires in air 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, Shikarpur, 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 their old enmity with him; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day; the identity of applicant under the light of bulb is a weak piece of evidence; there is no recovery of any sort from the applicant; and even otherwise no effective role in commission of the incident is attributed to the applicant, therefore, his involvement in this case on the point of vicarious liability is calling for further inquiry. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail. 

4.        Learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to applicant by contending that he is liable for commission of the incident on point of vicarious liability.

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

6.        Admittedly, the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent that he made aerial firing to create harassment. The parties are already disputed, therefore, the involvement of the applicant in commission of the incident on point of vicarious liability obviously is calling for further inquiry. 

7.        In view of above, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

8.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                              J U D G E