ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No. S-46 of 2023

(Hakim Ali Bozdar Vs. The State

1. For Orders on MA No.1436/2023.

2. For Orders on office objection.

3. For Orders on MA No. 400/2023.

4. For hearing of Bail Application.

07-03-2023.

Syed Israr Ahmed Shah, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Abdul Rasheed Kalwar, advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, Deputy P.G for the State

>>>>>…<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, not only committed murder of Gul Hassan, but also caused fire shot injuries to PW Rahib with intention to commit his murder and then went away by making fires in air to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant on having been refused post arrest bail by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge/(MCTC), Ghotki Mathelo has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant Crl. Bail Application under Section 497 Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant in order to satisfy his old enmity with him; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about 01 day and co-accused Muneer has already been admitted to bail by this Court. By contending so, he sought release of the applicant on bail on point of further inquiry and consistency. In support of his contention he relied upon case of Sher Afazal Vs. The State and another (2022 SCMR 186).

4. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to release of the applicant on bail by contending that the incident has taken place at his instigation, therefore, he is vicariously liable for commission of incident. In support of their contention, they relied upon case of Munawar Vs. The State (1981 SCMR 1092) and Muhammad Arshad Vs. The State (2006 SCMR 966).

5. Heard and record perused.

6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 01 day; the applicant has been shown to be empty handed at the time of incident and role attributed to him in commission of incident is only to the extent of instigation; the parties are already disputed with each other, therefore the involvement of the applicant in commission of incident on point of vicarious liability, obviously would be determined at time of trial. The case has finally been challaned and there is no apprehension of tempering with the evidence on the part of the applicant. In these circumstances, a case for release of the applicant on bail on point of further inquiry obviously is made out.

7. The case law which is relied upon by learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances, in those cases, accused were found to be armed with pistols at the time of incident. In the instant case, the applicant was found to be empty handed at the time of incident.

8. In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two lac) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

9. The instant Crl. Bail Application is disposed of accordingly along with listed applications.

Judge

Nasim/P.A