ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-173 of 2023

(Muhammad Nawaz @ Nazal Vs. The State.)

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application.

01.06.2023.

Mr. Shahbaz Ali Brohi, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, D.P.G for the State.

  -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

IRSHAD ALI SHAH J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention besides committing murder of Zahid Ahmed, caused fire shot injuries to PWs Muhammad Azeem and Mst.Dhayani with intention to commit their murder and then went away by causing lathi blow to PW Abdul Qayoom and making aerial firing to create harassment and insulting complainant party, for that the present case was registered. On refusal of pre-arrest bail by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 498 Cr.PC.

2.        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the name of the applicant does not transpire in the FIR and no effective role in commission of the incident is attributed to him and co-accused Khadim Hussain has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court, therefore, he is entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and malafide, which is not opposed by learned D.P.G for the State. However, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to release of applicant on bail by contending that his name was disclosed by the complainant subsequently by making further statement and he is vicariously liable for commission of the incident.      

3.        Heard arguments and perused the record.

4.        The name and description of the applicant are not appearing in FIR though it has been lodged with delay of about one day; it was disclosed subsequently by the complainant by making further statement, which was made with delay of about ten days to FIR; the further statement made by the complainant could hardly be treated as part of FIR; even otherwise,  no effective role in commission of the incident is attributed to the applicant, therefore, vicarious liability on his part, if any, would call for determination at trial; the case has finally been challaned and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of interim pre-arrest bail on his part. More-so, co-accused Khadim Hussain with utmost similar role has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court, during earlier hours of the day, therefore, no useful purpose would be served, if the applicant is taken into custody and then is admitted to bail on point of consistency.

5.                    In case of Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafarullah and others (1986 SCMR-1380), it has been held by Apex Court that;

“No useful purpose was likely to be served if bail of the accused is cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he could again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused were already on bail.”

6.        In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions. 

7.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE