IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Application No. S- 47 of 2022.
Arbab Ali Gabol
Vs.
The State
For the Applicant / Accused : Mr. Imtiaz Ali Mugheri
Advocate
For the Prosecution / State : Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo
Deputy Prosecutor General
Date of hearing : 03.03.3022
Date of announcement : 03.03.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. The applicant seeks post-arrest bail, in respect of F.I.R. No. 09 of 2021, registered on 03.05.2021 before P.S. Fatehpur, pertaining to alleged offences under Sections 302, 114, 337-H (2), 148 & 149 P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel submits that the earlier plea for bail by the applicant was rejected by the Court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/ Model Criminal Trial Court Larkana in Cr. Bail Application No.800 of 2021, hence, the present proceedings.
3. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel and sifting[1] through the material placed before the court, for and against the applicant, reproduction whereof is eschewed herein[2], it is observed as follows:
a. The case against the applicant is said to be only of aerial firing and while the learned counsel controverted the same as well, it is stated that even per the F.I.R the only allegation against the applicant is of mere presence and no specific role has been attributed thereto.
b. Learned counsel for the applicant pleaded entitlement to the concession of bail inter alia on the premise that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant; the only allegation is of mere presence; unexplained delay in registration of F.I.R; the entire rationale for involving the applicant in this case is personal enmity; and that the other co-accused have already been granted bail vide order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Crl. Bail Appln. Nos. S- 371, 374, 381 and 396 of 2021.
The learned D.P.G. articulated no cavil to the assertion that in the very least this is a case for further enquiry.
c. The grounds articulated by the learned counsel appear to be borne from the record and this observation was seconded by the learned D.P.G. It is also manifest that other co-accused have already been admitted to bail.
d. Upon tentative[3] assessment of the material[4] collected by the prosecution, for and against the applicant, it is manifest that the case, pertaining to the involvement of the applicant / accused in commission of the alleged offence, merits further enquiry[5], hence, demonstrably qualifying the present matter within the remit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has maintained that in matters requiring further enquiry, grant of bail is the rule rather than the exception[6].
e. It is also observed that the present case does not appear to fall within the ambit of exceptions[7] illumined in the Tariq Bashir case[8]. The material placed before the Court does not indicate any criminal record of the applicant, in cases of an identical nature or otherwise; no argument has been articulated requiring the applicant’s presence for further investigation at this stage or denoting him as a flight risk; no apprehension has been expressed with regard to tampering of evidence by the applicant or repeating the offence/s, if enlarged on bail; hence, no cause is apparent presently warranting the continued incarceration of the applicant pendente lite.
4. Therefore, it is the assessment of this Court that the learned counsel for the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of post arrest bail, hence, applicant Arbab Ali is hereby admitted to bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand rupees) and a personal recognizance bond, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. It is considered pertinent to record that the observations herein are of tentative nature and shall not influence and / or prejudice the case of either party at trial.
JUDGE
[1] Shoaib Mahmood Butt vs. Iftikhar Ul Haq & Others reported as 1996 SCMR 1845.
[2] Chairman NAB vs. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif & Others reported as PLD 2019 Supreme Court 445; Muhammad Shakeel vs. The State & Others reported as PLD 2014 Supreme Court 458.
[3] Shahzaman vs. The State reported as PLD 1994 Supreme Court 65.
[4] Asif Ayub vs. The State reported as 2010 SCMR 1735.
[5] Awal Khan & Others vs. The State reported as 2017 SCMR 538.
[6] Muhammad Shafi vs. The State reported as 2016 SCMR 1593; Nisar Ahmed vs. The State reported as 2014 SCMR 27.
[7] Zafar !qbal vs. Muhammad Anwar & Others reported as 2009 SCMR 1488; Subhan Khan vs. The State reported as 2002 SCMR 1797.