ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S 281 of 2022.

Date

Order with signature of Judge

 

For Hearing of Bail Application.

 

-

 

12-09-2022.

Mr.Shafiq Ahmed Leghari Advocate for applicant.

Mr.Muhammad Ali Nappar Advocate for complainant.

Mr.Khaleel Ahmed Maitlo DPG.

-

 

 

O R D E R.

 

ABDUL 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 377).

5. I 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.

 

6. Admittedly, 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.

 

 

JUDGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Akber.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To,

 

 

 

 

The Additional Registrar

High Court of Sindh

Bench at Sukkur.

 

 

R/Sir,

 

 

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,

Thanks.

 

Yours obediently

 

 

 

 

 

 

RIAZ HUSSAIN CHHIJAN

SR.OFFICE ASSOCIATE

WORKING AS COURT ASSOCIATE OF COURT-II.