ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr.B.A.No. 423 of 2023

(Sher Khan @ Shikha vs. The State)

Date Order with signature of Judges

For hearing of bail application

08.06.2023

Mr. Ghulam Fareed Baloch advocate for the applicant

Mr. Talib Ali Memon Assistant P.G for the State

Mr. Imran Baloch advocate for the complainant

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Hatim an insane person by causing him injuries with some hard blunt substance, for that the present case was registered. The applicant on having been refused bail by learned XI-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application under Section 497 Cr.P.C.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant, otherwise, he was having nothing to do with the alleged incident. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further inquiry, which is opposed by learned Asstt. P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant by contending that he is fully implicated in the commission of the incident by P.W Khair Bux.

Heard arguments and perused the record.

The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 01 day; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The complainant is not an eye witness to the incident, as per him he was intimated about the incident by P.Ws Amjad and Imran. The perusal of 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws Amjad and Imran prima facie suggest that they are not eye witnesses to the actual death of the deceased. Subsequently, P.W Khair Bux was introduced in investigation, as per him, the deceased was done to death by the appellant and others by causing him injuries with some hard blunt substance; his 161 Cr.P.C statement was recorded with delay of about 10 days to FIR, therefore, his version implicating the applicant in commission of incident could reasonably be judged with doubt. On arrest, it is said that the applicant has confessed his guilt before police. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that such confession was actually made by the applicant before the police; even then same in terms of Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 could not be used against him as evidence. The case has finally been challaned and there is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence on 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.

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

The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE