Crl. Bail Application No.S-317 of 2022








1.   For orders on O/objection at flag-A.

2.   For hearing of bail application




Date of hearing     20.02.2023



Mr. Noor Muhammad Soomro, Advocate for applicant.

Syed Sardar Ali Shah, Addl. Prosecutor General





Abdul Mobeen Lakho, J;     Through instant bail application, applicant/accused Ghulam Hyder son of Kando Khan Lashari seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.154/2021 Police Station, Kotdiji district, Khairpur for offence punishable under Sections 302, 337H(ii), 148, 149 PPC. Earlier his bail application was declined by learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur vide order dated 06.06.2022.


2.       The facts of the prosecution case are mentioned in the FIR attached with the memo of bail application and the same are not to be re-produced in view of the case of Mohammad Shakeel v. The State and others reported as PLD 2014 SC 458.


3.       Learned Counsel for applicant contends that the applicant has falsely been involved in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives due to matrimonial dispute; that there is one day delay in lodging of the FIR which has not properly explained by the complainant; that there is general allegations of firing against him hence, it is yet to be determined by the trial Court at trial whether applicant is involved in the commission of alleged offence or not; that co-accused Rano Lashari was granted pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 31.01.2022 hence, rule of parity is applicable to the case of present applicant; that vicarious liability is to be seen at the time of trial after recording evidence; that case has been challaned and applicant is no longer required for further investigation. By contending so, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant. He relied upon case of Tahir Zeb and others v. The State and another (2020 SCMR 1685), (2020 SCMR 451.



4.       As against, Syed Sardar Ali Shah, learned Additional Prosecutor General appearing for the State opposed for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that case of applicant is not on same footing to that of co-accused Rano whose bail has been confirmed and present applicant after his arrest produced one TT pistol of 30 bore alongwith magazine and three live bullets; that applicant and other co-accused were made direct firing at deceased, their names have been transpired in the FIR with specific role; that applicant was available at spot and had participated in the alleged crime; that during investigation allegation against  applicant is proved and case has been challaned; that no enmity has been shown to have false implication of applicant/accused in the commission of crime and he has shared common intention with co-accused and facilitated to main accused; that nothing is available on record to show that complainant party had any motive or reason to falsely implicate accused in the case; that deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be permitted at bail stage; that applicant is vicariously liable for the offence; that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. He prayed for rejection of bail.



5.       Heard arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.


Admittedly, the murderous dispute between applicant and complainant party was already going on and the role attributed against present applicant is of general nature. Indeed, co-accused namely, Rano has been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court and rule of parity is also applicable to the case of present applicant. Since, role attributed assigned to the present applicant of causing death of deceased by firing but there are other co-accused and which fire of which accused hit to deceased will be determined by the trial Court hence, on merits he has prima facie got good case for grant of bail, therefore, relying upon the dictum laid down in the cases supra, I am of the opinion that applicant has made out a case of further inquiry within the meaning of Sub-section (2) to Section 497 Cr.P.C. The applicant is behind bars since his arrest and trial has not yet concluded. Investigation in the case was complete therefore, accused was no longer required to Police for further investigation as such the incarceration of accused/applicant would serve  no useful purpose and case against him fell within the ambit of further inquiry.


6.       In view of above, I am of the considered view that applicant/accused has been able to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, instant bail application is allowed. The applicant/accused, namely, Ghulam Hyder son of Kando Khan Lashari is granted post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Rupees Three lacs) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. These are the reasons of my short order dated 20.02.2023 whereby bail of applicant was allowed.


7.       Needless to mention here that observation made herein above are tentative in nature and trial Court may not be influenced of the same and decide the case on its own merits as per evidence and the material made available before it.


          Bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.



                                                                 J U D G E