IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.
Criminal
Bail Application No.D-07 of 2021.
Before;
Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio,
Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
Applicants : 1. Shah Muhammad son of Jan Muhammad.
2. Rehmatullah
son of Shah Muhammad.
(Now confined at District
Jail Naushahro Feroze).
Through Mr. Achar Khan Gabole, Advocate
State :
Through Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional
Prosecutor General for the State.
Date of hearing : 30-03-2021.
Date
of order : 30-03-2021.
O R D E R
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the
culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their
common object by resorting to terrorism, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Noor Ahmed,
Mst. Koonj and Mst. Begam by causing them fire shot injures and cutting their
throat with dagger and then went away by making fires in air to create
harassment, for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicants on having been refused
post-arrest bail by learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court Naushahro Feroze have
sought for the same from this Court by way of instant Bail Application u/s 497
Cr.P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for
the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this
case falsely by the complainant party in order to grab the property of the deceased;
that the complainant is not an eyewitness of the incident and no effective role
in commission of incident is attributed to the applicants, therefore they are
entitled to be released on bail as their case is calling for further inquiry.
4. Learned APG for the State has opposed the
release of applicants on bail by contending that they being fugitive have
remained in absconsion for about two years.
5. We have considered the above arguments
and perused the record.
6. The complainant is not an eyewitness of
the incident. The role attributed to applicant Shah Muhammad in commission of
incident only to the extent of conspiracy/instigation while role attributed to
applicant Rehmatullah in commission of incident is only to the extent of making
fires in air to create harassment. Obviously the vicarious liability in
commission of incident on their part is calling for further inquiry. None
indeed could be denied concession of bail, on point of absconsion alone, when
it is made out on merits.
7. In case of Mitho
Pitafi vs. The State (2009 SCMR 299), it has been held by Honourable
Apex Court that;
“----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324---Constitution of
Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---It is well-settled principle of law that bail can
be granted if an accused has good case for bail on merit and mere absconsion
would not come in way while granting the bail. We are, prima facie, of the view
that the learned High Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of
the case in its true perspective while declining bail to the petitioner.”
8. In view of above, the applicants are
admitted to bail subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- each
and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
9. Above are the reasons for the short
order dated 30-03-2021, whereby the instant bail application was disposed of.
Judge
Judge
Nasim/Steno