IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S – 281 of
Order with signature of Judge
Hearing of Bail Application.
Ahmed Leghari Advocate for applicant.
Ali Nappar Advocate for complainant.
Ahmed Maitlo DPG.
D E R.
MOBEEN LAKHO, J:- Through the instant bail application, applicant Ubedullah Kandhro seeks Post-arrest bail in
respect of Crime No.05/2022 of Police Station, Dubar, Taluka Rohri, District
Sukkur, registered for offence under Section
302, 452, 114, 504,148, 149, PPC.
2. Briefly prosecution case as narrated in
the FIR is that on 22.02.2022 complainant
Gul Bahar Kandhro lodged FIR alleging therein that there is an old dispute over the landed property going on between
accused Ubedullah and complainant party on which the accused used to issue
threats. It is further alleged that on 22.02.2022, the complainant, his brother
Gulzar Ahmed, relatives Abdul Qadeer and Awais Ahmed were available in their
house when at about 11:00 AM accused Ubedullah (present applicant) armed with
lathi, Mumtaz, Mujeeb, Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Haneef armed with pistols
trespassed into the house of complainant, out of them accused Mujeeb straight
the pistol on complainant party due to fear the complainant party remained
silent. On the instigation of accused Muhammad Khan, accused Mumtaz and Muhammad Haneef caused kicks and fist
blows to deceased Gulzar Ahmed and caught hold his arm while allegation against
the present applicant Ubedullah is that he caused lathi blow to Gulzar Ahmed on
his chest with intention to commit his murder, who fell down. Thereafter the
complainant party took Gulzar Ahmed for treatment to Taluka Hospital Rohri
where he died on the way.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant, inter
alia, contended that applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case
by the complainant contrary to the actual facts and circumstance and with connivance of the local police on account of
old enmity going on over the landed property; that there is a delay of about 11
hours in lodgment of FIR while distance of Police Station from the place of
wardhat is only 7/8 K.Ms for which no explanation has been furnished; that
there is general allegation leveled in the FIR against the applicant that he
caused lathi blow to deceased Gulzar Ahmed on his chest but he did not repeat
the same though the complainant party was at the mercy of accused; that there
is conflict between medical evidence and ocular evidence and per medical
officer, the cause of death could not be ascertained; that the applicant has
good case for bail on merits and mere general allegation of causing lathi blow
to deceased would not deprive him of bail and otherwise the case of the
applicant is of further enquiry and no useful purpose would be served while
keeping him behind the bars till the conclusion of the trial. In support of
such contention, reliance is placed on
the cases reported as Ghulam Nabi alias Papu v The State (2012 M L D 695), Pur
Bux v The State (2012 SCMR 1955), Abu Bakar Siddique alias Muhammad Abu Bakar v
The State and others (2021 S C M R 540), Rafeed Niaz v The State and another (2021
S C M R 1467), Resham Khan another v The State through Prosecutor General
Punjab, Lahore and another (2021 S C M R 2011 and Ali Shah and another v The
State (22020 P Cr.L J Note 109).
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the
complainant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General have controverted the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant by contending that
the applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing lathi blow
to deceased Gulzar Ahmed on his chest and supported the case of the prosecution
and the dismissal order. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on
the cases reported as Zahoor Khan v Akhter Muhammad and another (2020 S C M R
993), Mohammad Nawab and another v The State (2021 P Cr.L.J 759), Alam Khan v
The State and others (2021 M L D 1541) and Mir Hassan v The State (2012 M L D
have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel
for the complainant and learned DPG for the State. I have also gone through the
material available on record.
the name of applicant transpires in the FIR with specific role of causing lathi
blow to deceased Gulzar Ahmed on his chest, which has resulted in the death of
deceased and offence under Section 302, PPC falls within the ambit of
Prohibitory Clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. As far as the delay of 11 hours in
lodging the FIR, is concerned, the same has been fully explained as immediately
after the incident, the complainant had sent Abdul
Qadeer to Police
Station for getting letter for
treatment of Gulzar Ahmed, who died on the way to Hospital. Apart from this, the arguments raised by the learned counsel
for the applicant regarding the delay in lodging of FIR and conflict between
ocular account and medical evidence require deeper appreciation of evidence,
which cannot be considered at bail stage as sufficient material available on
record connecting the applicant with the commission of alleged offence. The
case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is
distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. No case
for bail is made out. Consequently, bail application is dismissed.
The Additional Registrar
High Court of Sindh
Bench at Sukkur.
It is respectfully submitted that I am leaving for Hyderabad in connection with my personal work on 24th instant.
Kindly grant me one day casual leave i.e. 24.09.2022 for the said purpose with permission to leave H.Qr,
RIAZ HUSSAIN CHHIJAN
WORKING AS COURT ASSOCIATE OF COURT-II.