IN THE HIGH COURT SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Bail Application No. D- 40 of 2021

                                   

 

Present:

                                                                        Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput

                                                                        Justice Amjad Ali Sahito       

 

            Applicant                  :           Abdul Khalique @ Gulzar s/o Pir Bux Mangnejo, through Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Shar, advocate

 

            Respondent              :           The State, through Mr. Zulfiquar Ali Jatoi,

                                                            Addl. P. G.

                                               

            Date of hearing        :           24.08.2021 

            Date of order            :           24.08.2021

 

      ------------------

                                                     O R D E R

                                                      ------------------

 

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J:-       Applicant/accused Abdul Khalique @ Gulzar being abortive to get the concession of post-arrest bail from Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur in Special Case No. 08 of 2021, vide order dated 11.06.2021, through this application seeks the same concession from this Court in Crime/FIR No. 07 of 2021, registered under sections 302, 324, 353, 148, 149, P.P.C. and 7 ATA at Police Station, Tando Masti Khan.

 

2.         Precise allegations against the applicant, as per the FIR, are that on 20.01.2021 at 1200 hours, he along with dacoit Raheem Bux @ Rahmoon Phulpoto and other 12 co-accused, duly armed with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of such an unlawful assembly committed offence of rioting, deterred police officials  from discharging their official duties, fired on police officials with intention to commit their murder and thereby caused the death of police constable Muhammad Siddique Narejo, for which applicant, along with 13 other co-accused, was booked in the FIR.    

    

3.         Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that on 20.01.2021, SHO. SIP Ameer Ali Pathan of police station Faiz Muhammad Narejo, who has inimical terms with the applicant’s family, arrested the applicant from Kot Mir Muhammad and then on the next day he half fried him by causing fire shot on his right leg and then he shifted him to Civil Hospital, Khairpur; that the applicant did not take part in alleged encounter; that as per enquiry report of DSP Complaint Redressal Counter Ghotki, the applicant was not present at the relevant at the place of alleged occurrence; that the allegations against the applicant are absurd and baseless and no reasonable grounds exists to believe that he has committed the alleged offence; as such, he is entitled for the concession of bail on the ground of further inquiry.

 

4.         Conversely, learned Addl. P.G.  has vehemently opposed the instant application on the grounds that the applicant is the member of notorious Rahmoon gang of dacoits; that the applicant was arrested in injured condition during alleged police encounter by the police and an un-licensed rifle was also recovered from his possession and since no case of further inquiry has been made out, the applicant is not entitled for the concession of bail.

 

5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned Addl. P.G and have perused the material available on record with their assistance.

 

6.         The contents of the FIR are indicative of the facts that the applicant is the member of Rahmoon gang of dacoits and he was arrested on 21.01.2021 in injured condition by the police during an encounter took place between said gang of dacoits and police in the Jungle of Pan, situated in Tando Masti Khan. It is; however, an admitted position that there is no previous criminal record of the applicant suggesting that he was ever involved in any criminal case. It is also an admitted position that there is no direct evidence against the applicant for causing death of police constable Muhammad Siddique Narejo. No specific role has been assigned to applicant and the allegations against him are of general nature. So far sharing of common object is concerned; suffice it to say that whether accused shared common object with the principal offender(s) when not a single injury has been attributed to him, guilt of such accused calls for further inquiry. Similarly, in the instant case, only allegation against the applicant is that of his presence at the time of murder of deceased at the spot being a member of an unlawful assembly duly armed with weapon; besides it, no other overt act has been attributed towards him. Hence, the question of vicarious liability of the applicant with regard to the commonness of his object for committing alleged offence will be determined at the trial. It is also an admitted position that on the application of applicant’s father, DIG, Sukkur Range, directed SSP (Complaint Cell) Sukkur to conduct enquiry, who deputed DSP Complaint Redressal Counter, Ghotki as an enquiry officer and as per his enquiry report, dated 01.03.2021, the CDR of the applicant revealed that he had contacts with dacoit Raheem Bux @ Rahmoon Phulpoto but the CDR as well as ground information revealed that the evidence regarding his presence at the place on the date and time of police encounter could not be found. In these circumstances, the case against the applicant calls for further enquiry as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr. P.C. We; therefore, admit the applicant to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) and P.R. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

 

7.         Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant/accused on merits. However, in case the applicant misuses the concession of bail in any manner, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the same after giving him notice, in accordance with law.

 

8.         Above are the reasons of our short order dated 24.08.2021

 

JUDGE

                                                                                    JUDGE