IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application No. S- 88/2022.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
For hearing of bail application.
O R D E R.
25.04.2022.
M/s Abdul Raheed Kalwar and Ghous Bakhsh Shah
Kaheri, Advocates for applicant/accused.
Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar,
Additional P.G.
Mr. Khalid Jan Chachar
Advocate a/w complainant Haji Chand.
-.-.-.
AMJAD ALI
SAHITO J., Through this order, I intend to dispose of post arrest bail application
filed on behalf of applicant/accused Shahzado son of Faiz Muhammad Mahar in
crime No.107/2021, offence u/s 302, 114, 504, 147 and 148 PPC registered at police station Mirpur Mathelo,
District Ghotki. Prior to this,
applicant/accused had filed such application for grant of post arrest
bail but the same was turned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC
Ubauro vide order dated 26.01.2022, hence he has filed instant bail application.
2. The
details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail
application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with
such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Learned counsel for applicant
submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.
He further submits that though the name of applicant/accused appears in the FIR
but he has not caused any kind of injury to deceased. He further contended that
present applicant/accused has been assigned the role of caught hold to deceased
and has facilitated co-accused for commission of offence. He submits that it
will be determined at trial whether applicant/accused had facilitated
co-accused for commission of crime, which needs further enquiry. He lastly
prayed for grant of post-arrest bail. He has relied upon the cases of Muhammad Anwar v. The State (1981 SCMR 850),
Muhammad Nasar v. Muhammad Arsahd and another (1981 SCMR 894), Khair Muhammad
and another vs. The State through P.G Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130), Faqir
Muhammad vs. The State (1983 P.Cr.L.J 2158), Jan Muhammad and others vs. The
State (1986 P.Cr.L.J 1019), Ibrahim v. The State (1999 P.Cr.L.J 941), Mst.
Shahida v. The State (2010 P.Cr.L.J 992) and Nazar Muhammad v. The State (2016
MLD 886).
4. On the other hand learned
Additional P.G assisted by counsel for complainant vehemently opposed for grant
of bail to the applicant/accused on the ground that name of applicant
transpires in the FIR with specific role that he has facilitated main accused
in the commission of offence as such he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel
for applicant as well as learned Additional P.G for the State so also have gone
through the material available on record.
6. No
doubt the name of applicant/accused transpires in the FIR but no specific role
of causing any kind of injury to Muhammad Yousif has been attributed against
the present applicant/accused. Only the allegation against present
applicant/accused is that he along with co-accused Yakoob caught hold deceased.
He was alleged to be armed with lathi but he had not used the same. The
allegation against him that in spite of the fact that he was armed with lathi,
he caught hold of the deceased in order to facilitate the murder needs further
enquiry. In the case of Qurban Ali v. The State (2017 SCMR 279) the Honourable Supreme court of
Pakistan has granted bail to accused who has not been attributed any overt act
during the occurrence except the role of raising ‘lalkara’. Trial Court in such
circumstances had to determine, after recording pro and contra evidence,
whether the accused was vicariously liable for the acts of his co-accused. Case
against the accused was one of further enquiry. In this case complainant has alleged in the
FIR that applicant/accused Shahzado armed with lathi he along with co-accused
had caught hold deceased while co-accused Muhammad Eidan inflicted iron rod
blow to the father of complainant (deceased) but it has not been brought on
record that present applicant has maltreated the complainant or deceased. Investigation has been over and challan has
been submitted as such present applicant/accused is no more required for
further investigation.
7. In the
view of above, learned counsel for applicant has made out the case for grant of
bail in view of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Resultantly the listed
bail application is allowed and applicant/accused Shahzado son of Faiz Muhammad
Mahar is granted
post arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/-
(one lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial
Court. Learned trial Court is at liberty to take action against the
applicant/accused, if he misuses the concession of bail.
8.
Needless to mention that the
observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence
the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits.
9. The aforesaid bail application stand
disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Irfan/P.A
AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through this order, I intend to dispose of post arrest
bail application filed on behalf of applicant/accused Sagheer Ahmed son of
Muhammad Usman bycaste Solangi in crime No.78/2021, offence u/s 458, 364,
120-B, 448, 34 PPC registered at police station Abad District Sukkur. Prior to
this, the applicant/accused Sagheer Ahmed had filed such application for grant
of post arrest bail but the same was turned down by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II/Gender Based Violence Court, Sukkur vide order dated 27.01.2022, hence
he has filed instant bail application.
2. The details and
particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR,
same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application,
hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that
applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated by complainant in his
further statement which was recorded with the delay of eight months and there
is no provision in the law for recording further statement of the complainant.
He further contended that only on the basis of CDR, the applicant/accused was
found to remain in contact with the alleged abductee and as such the applicant/accused
was implicated in this case otherwise he is innocent and lastly prayed for
grant of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for
complainant as well as learned Additional P.G vehemently opposed for grant of
bail to the applicant/accused and stated that on the basis of further statement
of complainant, applicant/accused has been implicated in this case as during
investigation the CDR was collected by the police as such he is not entitled
for concession of post arrest bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for
applicant, learned counsel for complainant as well as learned Additional P.G
for the State so also have gone through the material available on record.
6. Admittedly the name of present
applicant/accused does not transpire in the FIR but subsequently further
statement of complainant was recorded with the delay of about eight months and
on the basis of CDR collected by the police, the present applicant/accused has
been implicated in this case otherwise no evidence has been brought on record.
No source has been disclosed by the complainant that who has informed the
complainant that the applicant/accused is involved in this case. Mere the
allegation against the applicant/accused that he was in contact with the
alleged abductee without any material / substance does not mean that he is
involved in the commission of offence. Applicant/accused is in Jail, he is no
more required for further investigation.
7. In view of above
discussion, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out a good case
for grant of bail in the light of sub
section (2) of Section 497 CrPC, hence the applicant/accused namely Sagheer
Ahmed son of Muhammad Usman Solangi is granted post arrest bail subject to
furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (One lac) and PR bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Learned trial Court
is at liberty to take action against the applicant/accused, if he misuses the
concession of bail.
8. Needless
to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and
would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the
applicant on merits.
9. The
aforesaid bail application stand disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Irfan/P.A