ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-485 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

31.01.2022

                        Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijarani, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of culprits, during course of robbery of Tractor, committed murder of Roshan Din by causing him fire shot injuries, for that the present case was registered. 

                        The applicant on having been refused bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr.PC.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant and co-accused Gadal with utmost similar role has already been acquitted by learned trial Court; therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry.

                        Learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to release of applicant on bail by contending that the applicant is hardened criminal of the area; has remained in absconsion for about twenty years and co-accused Gadal was acquitted by learned trial Court for want of evidence of the complainant.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The applicant is named in FIR with specific allegation that he with rest of the culprits during course of robbery of Tractor, committed murder of Roshan Din by causing him fire shot injuries. In that situation, it would premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant. No doubt, co-accused Gadal has been acquitted by learned trial Court but his acquittal was recorded mainly for the reason that the complainant could not attend learned trial Court for recording his evidence, who now is in attendance not only before this Court but even before learned trial Court. The applicant has not been able to explain his scandalous absconsion which is spreading over twenty years. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has committed the offence which he is charged. No case for release of the applicant on bail is made out. Consequently, the instant criminal bail application is dismissed.

J U D G E