ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Revision No. S- 39 of 2022

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

1. For order son office objection-A.

2. For hearing of bail application.

15.09.2022.

Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, advocate for the applicant/surety.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy Prosecutor General.

----------------

By this order I intend to dispose of this criminal revision application in which order dated 23.1.2021 passed by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad in Sessions Case No. 400/2019, against surety Meer Hassan has been passed and fine of Rs.100,000/- was imposed upon surety Meer Hassan, as he failed to produce accused Peerao @ Pir Bux before the trial court.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant/surety mainly submitted that efforts were made by the applicant to produce the accused before the court and because of his efforts accused surrendered before the trial court and he was acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 20.4.2022. It is further submitted that amount of fine may be reduced and lenient view may be taken as surety had no monitory gain and he had stood surety for the accused in the name of Almighty Allah. In support of the submissions he relied upon the orders passed by this court in Cr.Misc. A. No.137 of 2022 dated 4.7.2022 whereby this court taking a lenient view reduced the amount of surety bond i.e. Rs.300,000/- (three lacs) to Rs.100,000/ (one lac).

Learned DPG, in the view of orders passed by this court in the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous application submitted that since accused has been acquitted therefore, amount of surety bond may be reduced to some reasonable extent/amount.

Accordingly, in the view of submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as DPG this is a fit case for taking a lenient view as the surety had no other consideration but it is stated that surety stood in the name of almighty Allah. Surety bond i.e. Rs.100,000/- (one lac) is reduced to Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand) which shall be deposited by the surety before the trial court within two months. In case of default, trial court would be at liberty to take steps against surety to recover the surety amount of Rs.30,000/-, in accordance with law. With this modification instant revision is accordingly disposed of.

A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through learned Sessions Judge, concerned for compliance.

J U D G E

S.Ashfaq

ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr.Appeal No.S-17 of 2017.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For order on MA No.465/2017 (426 Cr.PC).

07.03.2016.

Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro Advocate for the appellant.

Syed Sardar Shah Rizvi APG.

----------------

Appellant/convict Raja @ Sajid Ali Bhutto by means of instant application seeks release on bail in terms of section 426 Cr.PC on the ground that the punishment/sentence awarded to the appellant is five years which falls under the ambit of short sentence. He further submits that appeal will take time in its hearing therefore, appellant be released on bail by suspending his conviction/sentence. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the case of Abdul Hameed V. Muhammad Abdullah (1999 SCMR 2589) and an unreported order dated 30.01.2017 passed by this court in Criminal Appeal No.S-106/2016 (Mosin V. The State).

Learned APG after confronting above situation and the law has very candidly conceded grant of application.

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for 05 years and there is heavy backlog of pendency on the board even paper book will consume much time in its preparation. The sentence being 05 years falls within the ambit of short sentence as defined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hameed V. Muhammad Abdullah (1999 SCMR 2589) the conviction / sentence in terms of impugned judgment are hereby suspended. The application in hand is allowed. Appellant shall be released on 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 the Additional Registrar of this Court.

J U D G E

S.Ashfaq

ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr.Appeal No.S-14 of 2017.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For order on MA No.774/2017 (426 Cr.PC).

07.03.2016.

Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijarahi Advocate for the appellant.

Syed Sardar Shah Rizvi APG.

----------------

Appellant/convict Muhammad Ayub by means of instant application seeks release on bail in terms of section 426 Cr.PC on the ground that the punishment/sentence awarded to the appellant is four years which falls under the ambit of short sentence. He further submits that appeal will take time in its hearing therefore, appellant be released on bail by suspending his conviction/sentence. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the case of Nazeer Ahmed and another V. the State (1999 MLD 1374), Abdul Ghaffar V. the State (2017 Y L R 30), Toto V. the State (2016 MLD 1805), Abdul Hameed V. Muhammad Abdullah (1999 SCMR 2589) and an unreported order dated 30.01.2017 passed by this court in Criminal Appeal No.S-10/2017 (Nizakat Ali V. The State).

Learned APG after confronting above situation and the law has very candidly conceded grant of application.

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for 04 years and there is heavy backlog of pendency on the board even paper book will consume much time in its preparation. The sentence being 04 years falls within the ambit of short sentence as defined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hameed V. Muhammad Abdullah (1999 SCMR 2589) the conviction / sentence in terms of impugned judgment are hereby suspended. The application in hand is allowed. Appellant shall be released on 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 the Additional Registrar of this Court.

J U D G E

S.Ashfaq

ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr.Appeal No.S-13 of 2017.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For order on MA No.773/2017 (426 Cr.PC).

07.03.2016.

Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijarahi Advocate for the appellant.

Syed Sardar Shah Rizvi APG.

----------------

Learned APG after confronting above situation and the law has very candidly conceded grant of application.

J U D G E

S.Ashfaq

Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the sentence is short one and by relying upon the case of Nazeer Ali alias Nazeer v. The State (2011 YLR 403 Karachi), he has prayed for suspension of sentence on the ground that sentence is short one. Learned DDPP for the State and Advocate for the Complainant have opposed the request.

There is no cavil to the proposition that the sentence awarded by the trial court is 05 years and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nazeer (supra) has already observed that the sentence of 05 years is short one. In view of above, application filed U/s. 426 Cr.PC is allowed, the sentence awarded to the Appellants is suspended. Let the Appellant be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Two Lac) each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court.

J U D G E

S.Ashfaq

ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr. B.A.No. S-570 of 2016.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

18.01.2017.

Mr. Ahmed Hussain Khoso Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Syed Sardar Shah Rizvi APG.

----------------

The applicant Khadim Hussain Shar has filed instant application in terms of section 498, 498-A Cr.PC and has sought his admission on pre-arrest bail in crime No.20/2016 registered with police station Mubarakpur (District Jacobabad) for the offence under section 302,34, 311 PPC. He has preferred such application No.1173 of 2016 before the first forum where he was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail but by order dated 17.10.2016 his application was dismissed giving rise to file instant application.

Crux of the prosecution case as unfolded in F.I.R No.20/2016 lodged by HC-Abdul Sami on 24.8.2016 are that on the eventful night, he alongwith his subordinates while patrolling received spy information that accused Khadim alongwith his brother Muhammad Qasim, strangulated Mst. Parri, the wife of applicant Khadim and killed her on false allegation of Siyah-Kari with Muhammad Bachal Shar. On receipt of such information, the complainant party reached at the house of accused Khadim at 23:00 hours, where they saw & identified accused persons, Khadim and Muhamdm Qasim came out form the house and on seeing police mobile fled away. Thereafter, complainant party found the dead body of Mst. Parri was lying on a cot at the ‘Aiwan’ of the house having black mark around the neck. The complainant dispatched the dead body of deceased Mst. Parri to civil hospital Jacobabad. Consequently, the complainant lodged F.I.R against the accused persons on behalf of the State.

Learned counsel for the applicant inter-alia has contended that the applicant is innocent and he has committed no offence. He further submitted that complainant is police who have not associated any independent person as witness. He next contended that this is an un-witnessed incident and police had not made legal heirs of deceased as complainant or witness of the incident, therefore, false implication of applicant cannot be ruled out. He in support of his contention has placed reliance upon case of Nazar Muhammad V. the State (2016 MLD 886), Shah Bali and another V. the State (2016 P.CrLJ 549), Abdul Hameed V. State (2016 P. Cr.OLJ 240), Zaigham Ashraf V. State (2016 SCMR 18), Manzoor Hussain and another V. the State (2011 SCMR 902) and Nisar Ahemd V. the State (2014 SCMR 27).

On other hand Syed Sardar Shah learned DPG appearing for the state has vehemently opposed the application and has contended that co-accused in this case who is brother of the applicant has been arrested by the police and incriminating pertaining to the offence have also been recovered from his possession. He next contended that the deceased Mst. Pari was the wife of applicant and her dead boy was lying found in his house subsequently was recovered from his house therefore, there is no denial to that extent. He lastly contended that since the applicant and his brother had committed the murder of deceased therefore, he being husband and guard of deceased was required to protect her instead he joined his hands and committed her Qatl-e-amd. The offence with which he stand charged is heinous one therefore, he do not deserve concession of bail in terms of extra ordinary. He however, has prayed for dismissal of this application.

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the material made available before me. Admittedly incident took place on 24.8.2016 at 10:00 PM and F.I.R was promptly lodged on the same date at 2345 hours. The applicant Khadim Hussain is nominated in the F.I.R with allegation that he alongwith brother Muhammad Qasim caused murder of Mst. Pari (wife of applicant) by strangulating her on the allegation of Syah-kari. The version of applicant is that the applicant is innocent is immaterial as deceased was done away within his house and subsequently her body was recovered from his house. It is tendency of the area that the people on patty matters deprive the innocent ladies/women by causing their murder without fear and relentlessly. The applicant being husband of the deceased when refused or avoided to file F.I.R regarding the incident than the complainant being police officer has got registered instant case against the applicant being State representative and the applicant has not pinpointed any ill will, animosity or malafide on the part of complainant. As far as law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned same has no relevancy with the fact and circumstances of the as the facts and circumstances of the instant case are quite different from the case relied upon. Therefore, same being distinguishable are not helpful to the applicant. The applicant being main offender is nominated in the F.I.R and the offence with which he stand charged carries capital punishment. As far as the grant of pre-arrest bail is concerned there are certain prime ingredients as has been defined by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the numerous judgments which not attract in this case. Consequently instant application being devoid of merits is dismissed.

These are the reasons of short order dated 16.1.2017 whereby interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicant was recalled.

J U D G E

s.ashfaq

ORDER-SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr.Appeal No.22 of 2016.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For order on MA No.1109/2016 (426 Cr.PC).

06.06.2016.

Mr. Muhammad Sharif, Advocate for the Appellants.

Mr. Munir Ahmed Abbasi DDPP.

Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, Advocate for Complainant.

----------------

J U D G E

S.Ashfaq

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANO

Cr. Bail Application No.S- 379 of 2022

Applicant(s): Tufail Ahmed @ Tufail Hussain Jiskani and others, through Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate.

The Complainant: Through Mr. Ayaz Hussain Kalhoro, Advocate.

The State: Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG .

Date of hearing: 12.09.2022.

Date of order: 12.09.2022.

ORDER

Naimatullah Phulpoto-J. Applicants/accused Tufail Ahmed alias Tufail Hussain, Imran alias Imran Ali and Guftar alias Guftar Ali seek pre arrest bail in Crime No.14/2022 registered at Police Station Veehar, for offences punishable under sections 430, 506/2, 34 PPC. Previously, applicants/accused applied for the same relief before learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana but the same was rejected by him vide order dated 26.7.2022. Hence, applicants/accused approached this court.

Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, learned advocate for the applicants/accused contended that there is dispute between the parties over water course; that there was delay of 27 days in lodging of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished; that it is alleged that accused were armed with deadly weapons but the same were not used in the commission of offence; that alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC; that malafide on the part of complainant and police is apparent on the record. Lastly, it is submitted that one applicant/accused namely Tufail Ahmed alias Tufail Hussain is Government servant, there is no likelihood of his absconcion and it is prayed for grant of pre arrest bail.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy Prosecutor General recorded no objection for confirmation of the bail to the applicants/accused. However, Mr. Ayaz Hussain Kalhoro, advocate for the complainant opposed the pres-arrest bail on the ground that names of the applicants/accused transpire in the FIR and applicants /accused have dismentled the water courses and committed the alleged offence.

I have carefully heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

I am inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the applicants/accused mainly for the reasons that there was delay of 27 days in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished. It is case of prosecution that accused were armed with deadly weapons at the time of incident but the same were not used; the alleged offences do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. It is also submitted that there is dispute between the parties over a water course and malafide is apparent on the record. Applicant Tufail Ahmed alias Tufail Hussain is government servant and there is no likelihood that he will abscond away. Now a days, it is settled principle of law that while granting pre arrest bail merits of the case can also be considered as held in the case of an unreported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rana Muhammad Imran Nasrullah v. the State (Criminal Petition No: 358-L of 2022 dated 23.8.2022).

For the above stated reasons, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused vide order dated 01.08.2022, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

The observations made herein above are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, prejudice the case of either party before the trial court.

The bail application stands disposed of.

J U D G E

S.Ashfaq