IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-426 of 2021

Applicants: Muhammad Amin and others,

through Mr. Shamsuddin N.Kobhar,

Advocate

Complainant: Tariq Ahmed Shahani

through Ms Amber Iqbal Advocate

State: Through Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo

Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing: 10-09-2021

Date of Decision: 10-09-2021

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through captioned bail application, applicants Muhammad Amin, Allah Rakhyo, Ali Sher, Gulsher, Farzand and Munawar @ Muhammad Munawar all by caste Shahani, seek their post-arrest bail in Crime No.49/2021, registered at Police Station Adilpur, for the offences u/s 302, 324, 114, 147, 148 and 149 PPC. Their earlier bail plea was declined by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC) Ghotki, vide order dated 30.06.2021.

2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution are that on the day of incident complainant Tariq Ahmed, his brother Farooq Ahmed, uncles Muhammad Suleman, Azharuddin, Rafique Ahmed and Mumtaz Ali and cousin Abdul Basit were returning home from their agricultural lands, when they reached at link road village Ali Bux Shahani at about 06.45 p.m, the present accused Muhammad Ameen, Allah Rakhio, Ali Sher, Gulsher, Farzand and Munawar armed with lathies and co-accused Arshad Ali and Hashmat armed with guns, intercepted them and at the instigation of applicant Muhammad Amin attacked upon the complainant party during which accused Arshad fired shot with his gun at Farooq Ahmed which hit him at his stomach, accused Hashmat caused butt blows on the back of Farooq Ahmed while the present accused caused lathi blows to complainant and PWs on different parts of their bodies. In the way to hospital the injured Farooq Ahmed succumbed to injuries and died. The motive behind the occurrence is enmity over landed property.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that there is delay of 14 hours and 45 minutes in registration of F.I.R and the same has not been explained by the complainant; that the F.I.R was registered with false facts; that the allegations against the applicants are of only causing lathi blows to the PWs and not of causing any injury to the deceased and the injuries attributed to the present applicants, as per medical certificates carry punishment up to five years and do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C; that the allegation of instigation against applicant Muhammad Amin requires further enquiry. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicants has placed his reliance on the cases of Sajid v. Samin ur Rehman (deceased) through his father and others (2021 SCMR 138) and Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State (1996 SCMR 1125).

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the applicants are nominated with specific role in the F.I.R and they shared common intention in the commission of offence which carries capital punishment and falls within prohibitory clause; that all the witnesses have supported the version of the complainant in their 161 C.P.C statements and the medical evidence is in line with ocular evidence. She has prayed that bail application of the applicant may be dismissed.

5. Learned D.P.G. has contended that there is no contradiction in ocular version and medical evidence and the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account, therefore, he has also prayed for rejection of the bail plea of the applicants/accused. He in support of his contention placed his reliance on the case of Sidra Abbas v. The State and another (2020 SCMR 2089).

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record with their able assistance.

7. Admittedly the names of the applicants/accused are mentioned in the F.I.R with specific role of causing injuries to the complainant and PWs as well as sharing common intention with co-accused Arshad Ali in committing murder of deceased Farooq Ahmed; the version given by the complainant in the FIR was supported by the PWs in their 161 Cr.P.C statements; the ocular evidence is supported by the medical evidence; the delay in registration of F.I.R has been properly explained by the complainant in the F.I.R; recovery of lathies have been effected from accused Ali Sher and Farzand; there is sufficient iota of evidence to connect the applicants/accused with the offence which carries capital punishment and falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C; it is well settled principal of law that the court has to make tentative assessment while deciding the bail application and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage; the case law referred by the learned counsel for the applicants are based on different facts and circumstances to the case of present applicants, while the case law referred by learned DPG supports the case of complainant.

8. In these circumstances; I am of the considered view that the applicants have failed to make out their case for grant of post-arrest bail. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application stands dismissed.

9. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA