IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, SUKKUR BENCH, SUKKUR

Criminal Bail Application No.S-596 of 2021

 

 

Applicant:                                          Raza Muhammad, through              Mr. Muhammad Tariq Maitlo, Advocate.

State:                                                 Through Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional Prosecutor General

Date of hearing:                                 25.10.2021

 

Date of decision:                                25.10.2021 

 

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:              Through this bail application, the applicant Raza Muhammad s/o Dur Muhammad seeks his post-arrest bail in Crime No.01 of 2021, registered at P.S Sorah, District Khairpur, for an offence punishable u/s 324, 114, 337-H2, 34 PPC. Earlier his bail application was declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Khairpur vide order dated 06.05.2021, hence this application.

 

2.                 The allegation against the present applicant/ accused is that he caught hold the injured Pir Dini when accused Arbelo made direct gunfire upon her with intention to commit murder, which hit her on her chest.

 

3.                 Learned Counsel for the Applicant, at the very outset, submits that applicant/accused is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated by the Complainant due to matrimonial dispute, which fact has also admitted in the contents of FIR; that the role against the present applicant is that he caught hold the injured; however no any injury has been attributed to the applicant/accused; that incident was of night time and the identification of the applicant at the place of incident is doubtful; that the bail application was rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that he being armed with pistol caught hold injured from her arms and co-accused fired upon her chest with intention to commit murder. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the case laws reported in 2021 SCMR 470, 1995 SCMR 310, 1978 SCMR 375, 2017 YLR Note 164, 2003 P Cr L J 1688 and 2011 YLR 1091. Lastly, he prayed that applicant may be admitted to bail.     

 

4.                 Learned DPG opposed the grant of bail on the ground that applicant/accused is nominated in FIR by assigning direct role that he caught hold the injured from her arms when co-accused had made straight fire upon the chest of injured and in such circumstances, he shared his common intention with the main accused hence does not deserve to be bailed out.

 

5.                 I have heard learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as learned Additional PG and have gone through the material available on record with their able assistance.

 

6.                 This incident took place on 01.01.2021 at 0100 hours at night time and the FIR was registered on the same day at 1230 hours and the delay, if any, has been explained in FIR by the Complainant. The accused is nominated in the FIR with the role that he caught hold the injured and facilitated co-accused, who after the act of present applicant, fired upon the injured. Perusal of record shows that apparently applicant actively facilitated the co-accused for causing injury to the injured. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Sh. Muhammad Abid vs. The State (2011 SCMR 1148), while dealing with the issue of common intention was pleased to held that once it is found that the accused persons had common intention to commit the crime, it is immaterial as to what part was played by whom as law as to vicarious liability is that those who stand together, must fall together. The question what injuries were inflicted by a particular accused in cases to which Section 34 PPC applies is immaterial, the principle underlying the section being that where two or more persons acted with the common intention each is liable for the act committed if it had been done by him alone. Reliance is also placed on the case of Sidra Abbas v. The State and another (2020 SCMR 2089), wherein Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted by this Court at Principal Seat and in that case allegation against the applicant was that of presence at the place of incident with co-accused.

 

7.                In sequel to above, the instant Cr. Bail Application is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the case as early as possible. The facts and circumstances of the case laws so relied upon by learned Counsel for the applicant are distinguishable from the present case.

 

8.                The observation made herein above are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party on merits at the trial. 

 

JUDGE

Faisal Mumtaz/PS