ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-732 of 2021

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Applicant: Deedar Hussain, through

Mr. Jamal Nasir Bullo, Advocate

Complainant: Syed Abdul Qadir Shah, through

Mr. Muhammad Ali Napar, Advocate

State: Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad

Mahar,

Date of hearing: 14.02.2022

Dated of order: 14.02.2022

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through instant bail application, applicant/accused Deedar Hussain @ Makhan Shah son of Ghulam Murtaza Shah is seeking his post-arrest bail in FIR No.41/2021, registered at Police Station Site Area Sukkur, under sections 302, 34, 337-H(ii) PPC. His earlier post-arrest bail plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Sukkur, vide order dated 15.10.2021.

2. The allegation against the present applicant is that he at time of occurrence made aerial firing while co-accused Sultan Shah made two straight shots with pistol upon complainant’s brother Abdul Wajid Shah with the result he died.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is delay of one day in registration of FIR and no role has been assigned to the present applicant except aerial firing which too requires further enquiry as according to CDR reports the complainant was not present at place of incident at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contentions placed reliance on 2005 MLD 1267, 2021 SCMR 540, 2018 YLR 1359, 2020 P.Cr.L.J Note 62 and 2020 MLD 786

4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned DPG opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the name of applicant transpires in the FIR and 161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses. They further contended that crime weapon has also been recovered therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail. They in support of their contentions relied upon 2021 SCMR 522, PLD 1994 SC 65.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their able assistance.

6. Record reflects that there is delay of one day in lodging of FIR which has not been explained as such consultation and deliberation cannot be ruled out. Though the applicant is nominated in the FIR, however, the role assigned against him is of aerial firing, no other active role is assigned against the applicant for inflicting fatal shots to the deceased or any of the PWs, as such the case of applicant requires further enquiry. Sharing of common intention by the applicant with the co-accused will be decided by the trial court after recording evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is settled principle of law that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage and bail application is to be decided tentatively on the basis of material available on record.

7. From the tentative assessment of the material available on the record, the applicant has made out his case for grant of post-arrest bail. Resultantly, this bail application is allowed and applicant is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/-(rupees two lacs) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

8. Observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA