ORDER-SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 487 of 2020.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
14.12.2020.
1. For orders on M.A. No. 5285/2020.
2. For orders on M.A. No. 3999/2020.
3. For hearing of bail application.
Mr. Zafar Ali Malghani, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General.
Complainant is present in person.
~~~~~~~
Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this application, applicant Shahan son of Dur Muhammad Jamarani has sought for his admission to post-arrest bail in Crime No.32/2014, registered at Police-Station Rasheed Wagan (District Larkana), for offences punishable under Sections 302, 337-H (2), 148 and 149 P.P.C. His similar prayer was declined by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/ Model Criminal Trial Court Larkana vide Order dated 05.08.2020.
The allegation against present applicant as per F.I.R lodged by complainant Sarahuddin Jamarani is that on fateful day i.e. 27.6.2014, he in company of co-accused Yaseen, Yamin, Hubdar, Zahoor alias Abdul Rahim, Parvez, Kauro, Ali Hyder, Khadim, Sajjad, Himath, Nizam, Bilawal alias Abdul Hadi, Dur Muhammad, Mehmood, Bakhshal, Ahmed and Jameel duly armed with deadly weapons i.e. guns and G-3 rifle came at place of incident i.e. Otaq of complainant near his house. Out of them, accused Haneef is alleged to have made direct fire at Nusrat; accused Hubdar, Zahoor, Parvez and Yameen are alleged to have fired at Aurangzeb, whereas applicant Shahan and rest of co-accused are alleged to have made aerial firing.
Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that no any active role of causing any injury to any of deceased is assigned to applicant except making aerial firing. Per learned counsel, in these circumstances, the question of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of present applicant with co-accused would be determined at the time of trial. Learned counsel further contended that co-accused Khadim, Imdad and Jameel had been granted bail by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, vide order dated 25th September 2014 and case of the present applicant is on same footings to that of co-accused, who have been granted bail, therefore, the applicant on the basis of rule of consistency also deserves same concession and treatment, as such, he prays for grant of bail in favor of applicant.
Conversely, learned D.P.G. opposed grant of bail to applicant on the grounds that, applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R with his name and parentage with role that he duly armed with gun came at place of incident and made aerial firing thereby facilitating the principal accused who committed murder of two innocent persons, as such he is vicariously liable for the murder of deceased.
No doubt, the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R, but no specific role of causing any injury to any of deceased is assigned to him; he is only alleged to have made aerial firing. As such, question of common intention and vicarious liability of the applicant in respect of murder of deceased would be determined at trial. Moreover, co-accused Khadim, Imdad and Jameel had been granted bail by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 25th September 2014, therefore, rule of consistency would be applicable to the case of present applicant also. As for as, absconsion of the applicant is concerned, it is also well settled law by now, that mere absconsion would not come in way of grant of bail, if otherwise a case for bail is made out. In this regard, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mitho Pitafi v. The State (2009 SCMR 299), has observed that bail could be granted, if the accused has good case for bail on merits and mere his absconsion would not come in the way while granting him bail.
A tentative assessment of all the above factors makes the case of applicant one of further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed. The applicant is granted bail upon his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Three hundred thousand rupees) and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
JUDGE
Ansari/*