IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,LARKANA

Cr. Bail Application No.S-453of 2020

Applicant:                                Arbab s/o Ghulam Rasool Khichi,

Through Mr. Ahmed Wadho,

Advocate.

Complainant:                           Abdul Wahab s/o Mohammad Yousuf Khichi,

Through Mr. Khalid Hussain Mugheri, Advocate.

State:                                       Through Mr. Muhammad Noonari,

Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing:                       05-11-2020

Date of Decision:                      05-11-2020

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through the captioned bail application, applicantArbab son of Ghulam Rasool Khichi seeks his post arrest bail in Crime No. 16/2019, registered at Police Station Qubo Saeed Khan, for the offences U/S 302,148,149 P.P.C. Earlier his bail application was declined by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot, vide order dated 20.08.2020.

2. As per F.I.R, on the day of incident the complainant, his sons Abdul Ghaffar, aged about 25/26 years, 2) Abdul Sattar and cousin Bashir Ahmed came together on motorcycles to Katchi Pull in connection with some work. At about 11.30 a.m., they saw that accused persons, namely, 1) Abdul Raheem, 2) Khalid Hussain, 3) Abdul Hakeem, 4) Arbab, 5) Mohammad Rafique, 6) Mumtaz and two unidentified persons emerged there on three motorcycles, they were armed with  pistols. Accused Abdul Raheem made straight fire of his pistol at his son Abdul Ghaffar, which hit him near left side of nipple; accused Khalid Hussain also made straight fire with his pistol upon Abdul Ghaffar, which hit him on right side of his back and accused Arbab fired straight with his pistol at Abdul Ghaffar, which hit him below his right side shoulder, who fell down by raising cries and thereafter the accused persons fled away on their motorcycles towards eastern side. Then they saw that Abdul Ghaffar was lying dead due to firearminjuries. They brought the dead body of deceased at Taluka Hospital, Qubo Saeed Khan. After funeral and burial of dead body, the complainant lodged the F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is delay of 12 hours in registration of F.I.R and the has not been explained by the complainant; that F.I.R was registered with false facts and that three co-accused were released by the police by declaring them as innocent and kept their names in column No.2 of the challan. Learned counsel further submits that there are contradictions in between ocular evidence and medical evidence. Lastly, he prayed for grant of post arrest bail to the applicant/accused. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases reported as AKHTAR ZAMAN Versus The STATE (2018 YLR 149)and HADAY KHAN Versus The STATE (2019 YLR Note 96).

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the applicant is charged with specific role in the F.I.R for causing fire arm injury to the deceased Abdul Ghaffar; that all the witnesses supported the version of the complainant; that though the names of other co-accused were placed in column No.2 of the challan, but the learned Magistrate had took cognizance of offence against those accused. He has prayed that bail application may be dismissed.

5. Learned D.P.G. submits that there is no contradiction in ocular evidence and medical evidence and the medical evidence is supportive to the ocular account, therefore, he has also prayed for rejection of the bail application of the applicant/accused.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record with their able assistance.

7. Admittedly the name of the applicant/accused is mentioned in the F.I.R with specific role that he has caused firearm injury to the deceased Abdul Ghaffar; version given by the complainant in the FIR was supported by the PWs in their 161 Cr.P.C statements; Ocular evidence is supported by themedical evidence; the delay in registration of F.I.R has been properly explained by the complainant in the F.I.R; the applicant was arrested later-on after submitting the challan by the investigation officer. In the similar facts and circumstances the Supreme Court has declined the bail in the case of SHOUKAT ILAHI V. JAVED IQBAL AND OTHERS (2010 SCMR 966), wherein Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observedas under:-

“6.We have given due consideration to the submission made and have gone through the material available on record. From the record, we find that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR; that the motive had been alleged against him; that a specific role of raising Lalkara was assigned to him and that it was specifically mentioned that he and co-accused fired at the deceased, which hit him. The PWs have supported the case in their 161 Cr.P.C statements which is further corroborated by the medical evidence, as according to Medical Officer the deceased had six firearm injuries out of them two were exit wounds. Thus, prima facie incident has been committed by more than one person. From the material available on record, we are of the view that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is involved in the case.”

8. In these circumstances; I am of the considered view that the applicant has not made out his case for grant of post arrest bail. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application stands dismissed.

9. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

J U D G E