ORDER
SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Misc. Application
No.S-634 of 2021
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.
For
orders on MA No.5312/2021
2.
For
orders on MA No.5313/2021
3.
For
hearing of main case
27-09-2021
Syed Tanveer Abbas Shah, Advocate for the
applicant
.-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
1.
Granted.
2 & 3. This application has been filed against
the order dated 06.09.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/MCTC Ubauro, in Cr. B.A.No.1152 of 2021, whereby learned trial court has
granted bail to respondent No.2 Munawar Ali.
Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that there appears reasonable ground to
connect the respondent No.2 with the commission of offence who along with
co-accused has committed heinous offence of murder of Mst. Ameeran. He further
contended that the learned trial court has not considered the relevant laws and
without applying his judicious mind granted bail to the applicant. He lastly
prayed that the bail granted to applicant by the trial court may be cancelled.
I have heard learned counsel
for the applicant and perused the impugned order. Para No.5 of the impugned
order is reproduced here under:-
“5) I have heard both sides
and perused the record which reveals that the applicant/accused is not
nominated in the FIR. However, his name has been disclosed by the witnesses
namely Datar Dino and Basheer Ahmed Samejo and further statement of the
complainant Nek Muhammad Samejo recorded on 19.06.2021. Further, the role
assigned to the applicant/accused is only to the extent of making ineffective
firing at the complainant party. Enmity over landed property is itself admitted
in FIR. The question arises, the applicant/accused Munawar Ali being closely
related to the co-accused persons were identified by the witnesses at the time
of incident, then why did they not disclose the name of applicant/accused to
the complainant at the time of registration of FIR which is delayed for about
one day. The guilt or otherwise of the applicant/accused is going to be proved
during trial and till then he has fit case for further inquiry. In the given
circumstances, the applicant/accused has a fit case for grant of bail.
Therefore, the applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500000/- (Five lac)
and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of this court. The case
laws submitted by learned counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of this case.”
Learned
counsel for the applicant has not been able to rebut the reasons which have
been assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for grant of bail which
in my view are sufficient for grant bail to the accused/respondent. No
illegality in the impugned order has been pointed out by the learned counsel
for the applicant. The grounds for cancellation of bail are very strict, no solid ground for cancellation of bail has been
agitated by the learned counsel for the applicant/complainant. The impugned order
is passed on sound reasons and does not require any interference of this court.
Resultantly this application is dismissed in limini along with listed
application.
JUDGE
Suleman Khan/PA