ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No.250 of 2009.
|
DATE OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE |
1. For orders on M. A. No.757/2009
2. For Hearing.
22.5.2009
Mr. Ali Hassan Brohi, advocate for applicant.
Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro, State Counsel.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Applicant Dildar Shar seeks bail in Crime No.05/2006, registered at Police Station Garhi Yaseen for offence punishable 302, 148, 149, PPC. The bail application was moved before the learned Ist. Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, who turned down it vide order dated 30.1.2009. Hence he approached this court.
Brief facdts of the prosecution case are that complainant Ghulam Sarwar Mahar lodged report at P.S Garhi Yaseen on 29.1.2006 at 1500 hours alleging therein that Ghanwar Ali son of Hadi Bux R/o near village Noushero Abro is his cousin, whose age is 35 years. On the day of incident complainat and his cousin Ghanwar Ali went to village and when they reached near the house of Lakhmir, it was 1-00 p.m they saw accused Miro son of Mail, Cheman son of Mail, Manthar Ali son of Ayo, Nader Ali son of Ayo, Deedar son of Ayo, Ludho son of Saleem, armed with rifles, Saakh son of Saleem, Aiwaz son of Manthar, Dildar son of Manthar, Ibrahim son of Soomar, Ali Nawaz son of Ludho, Toto son of Dolan by caste Shar armed with hatchets all resident of near Noshero Abro, they gave hakals to standing persons namely Ghanwar son of Hadi Dino and Ghulam Sarwar son of Rohidad by caste Shar by accused Meero alias Mail that today they will not leave them, in their presence accused Meero gave hakals to others who fired at Ghanwar, which hit him and he fell down on the ground, complainant party gave hakal, on this accused Meero asked that they had taken revenge of his nephew Punhal then all the accused decamped towards Eidgah side. Complainant and P.Ws went to Ghanwar and found him dead and then Ghulam Sarwar went to Police Station and lodged such report.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned State Counsel and perused the material available on record with the assistance of learned State Counsel.
Mr. Aloi Hassan Brohi learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the allegation against the applicant is that he was shown armed with weapon only but no overt act even of ineffective firing has been attributed to him and that mere one accused has been attributed specific role of causing injuries to deceased and remaining have not given any role in the commission of crime along with applicant/accused and that vicarious liability if any is to be seen at the time of trial and at this stage applicant/accused is entitled for the concession of bail.
Learned State Counsel states that even no recovery has been made from the applicant therefore, he concedes to the grant of bail.
Admittedly, no overt act was allegedly ascribed to the accused except he was armed with hatchet and present along with other accused which is also not proved. The deceased has sustained no any hatchet injury, nor any specific allegation are there that the applicant Dildar caused hatchet injury. Fatal shot was attributed to co-accused Meero who gave hakal to the deceased Ganwar Ali and fired on the deceased from his rifle which hit on lefr side of his leg, who raised cries and fell down. The main accused Meero is behind the bar and the question of vicarious liability of accused could be determined at the time of trial. There are also no such allegation that the present applicant/accused gave any hakal or Lalkara to the deceased. Case against accused, thus, requires further enquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, bail is granted to the applicant/accused subject to solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application and may not influence the mind of trial Court which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to merits of the case.
Judge