IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-172 of 2021

Applicant: Ali Asghar Channa, through

Mr. Saifuddin Laghari, Advocate

Complainant: Nemo

State: Through Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo

Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing: 24-09-2021

Date of Decision: 24-09-2021

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through captioned bail application, applicant Ali Asghar son of Muhammad Sukhiyal Channa, seeks his post-arrest bail in Crime No.119/2016, registered at Police Station Pir Wassan District Khairpur, for the offences u/s 302, 324, 114, and 34 PPC.

2. The allegations against the applicant/accused is that he along with co-accused entered into the house of complainant and on the instigation of co-accused fired from his gun upon Abdul Rahim which hit him who later on succumbed to injuries and passed away. The motive behind the occurrence is enmity over landed property.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed this application mainly on the ground of hardship as well as on merits and has contended that earlier bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed as not pressed with direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within two months but learned trial court could not conclude the trial within stipulated period as such the applicant is entitled for concession of bail who is behind bars for four years. He also submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to enmity over landed property. He further contended that all the PWs are relatives of the complainant and no independent witnesses is cited in the FIR. He further submitted that co-accused Rahim Bux and Abdul Ghaffar have already been granted bail therefore on the rule of consistency the applicant is also entitled for concession of bail.

4. Learned D.P.G has opposed the grant of bail and contended that non-compliance of such direction by the trial court may not entitle the accused to claim bail as of right. He in support of his contention placed his reliance on the case of Talat Ishaq v. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 112). He further submitted that applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role and offence falls within prohibitory clause, which carries capital punishment.

5. 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.

6. Record reflects that earlier bail application of the applicant bearing BA No.S-506/2020 was dismissed as not pressed on 05.11.2020, issuing directions to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of two months. However, such directions were not complied with by the trial court within stipulated period. Such direction is an administrative direction and non-compliance of such a direction by the trial court for whatever reasons may not entitle the accused person to claim bail as of right. In this regard I am forfeited with the case of Talat Ishaq (supra) referred by learned DPG. So far the merits is concerned, in the report called from the trial court it is mentioned that the case is at the verge of conclusion and the evidence of only Tapedar is remaining to be recorded. Therefore, at this stage when the trial is on completion, discussion of merits may cause prejudice to the case of either party. In the case of Muhammad Nawaz v The State (2002 SCMR 1381) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while declining the bail in such situation has observed as under:

“…… Since the trial is likely to be concluded in the near future, as such, we are deliberately not attending the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant the concession of post-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage……..”

7. In these circumstances, instant criminal bail application is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to complete the trial within shortest reasonable period of time.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA