IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No. S- 91/2022.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of pre-arrest bail.

Applicant/accused: Ghulam Rasool son of Abdul Ghafoor (shown in FIR as Shahid alias Ghulam Rasool S/O Abdul Ghafoor alias Bahawal) bycaste Panhyar.

State: Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional P.G along with PW Sikandar Ali uncle of complainant.

Date of hearing : 28.02.2022.

Date of Order: 28.02.2022

AMJAD ALI SAHITO J, Through this order, I intend to dispose of pre-arrest bail application filed on behalf of applicant/accused Ghulam Rasool son of Abdul Ghafoor (shown in FIR as Shahid alias Ghulam Rasool son of Abdul Ghafoor alias Bahawal) bycaste Panhyar in Crime No.211 of 2021, offence under sections 302, 34 PPC registered at Police Station Mirwah, District Khairpur Mir’s. Prior to this, the applicant/accused named above filed such application for grant of pre-arrest bail but the same was turned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Khairpur vide order dated 21.10.2021 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/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is dispute between the parties over landed property otherwise the role assigned to the applicant/accused that he caught hold the deceased from his legs. He further submits that challan has been submitted and applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation. Lastly counsel for applicant prayed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused.

4. On the other hand complainant is called absent whereas his uncle Sikandar Ali is present, who as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General opposed for grant of pre-arrest bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional P.G and have gone through the material available on record.

6. In the case of Khair Muhammad and others v. The State through P.G Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while granting pre‑arrest bail even the merits of the case can be touched upon. No doubt name of applicant/accused transpires in the FIR and the role assigned to the present applicant/accused that he was armed with pistol and caught hold the deceased from his legs but he did use the pistol in the commission of the alleged offence. Infact main role assigned against accused Imtiaz Ali who was sitting on the chest of deceased and was strangulated him. In the case of Qurban v. State 2017 SCMR 279 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has granted bail to accused who had not been attributed any overt act during the occurrence except the role of raising lalkara and further held that in such circumstances of the case, it is for the learned Trial Court to determine, after recording evidence pro and contra, whether the accused is vicariously liable for the act of co-accused and that case was one of further enquiry. Reliance is also placed on the case of Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State (1996 SCMR 1125). In another case of Jahanzeb and others v. state through A.G Khber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and another (2021 SCMR 63) Honourable Supreme Court has granted bail to accused persons on the ground that allegation against accused persons was that they resorted to indiscriminate firing, however, the deceased sustained only a single shot whereas none of the prosecution witnesses sustained even a scratch. No overt act was ascribed to the accused persons except the allegation of ineffective firing, which too was not supported by recovery of any weapon. Case of accused persons was one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of S.497(2) Cr.P.C entitling them for the concession of bail. Learned counsel for applicant/accused also pleaded mala fide on the part of complainant with regard to dispute over the landed property is going on between the parties.

7. In view of above discussion, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out a good case for confirmation of bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC, hence interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused Shahid alias Ghulam Rasool vide order dated 23.02.2022 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

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 bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

I rfan/P.A