IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT
(1) Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 335 of 2023.
Applicants: 1. Sohrab son of Liaquat Khoso.
2. Liaquat son of Sohrab Khoso,
through Mr. Rafique Ahmed K. Abro, Advocate.
(2) Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 337 of 2023.
Applicants: 1. Faiz Muhammad son of Sardar Khan.
2. Shafiq-u-Rehman son of Faiz Muhammad.
3. Jameel Ahmed son of Faiz Muhammad.
4. Muhammad Rafique son of Arz Muhammad,
through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate.
Complainant: Ashfaq Ahmed Khoso, through Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate.
Respondent: The State, through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.
Date of hearing: 31.08.2023.
Date of order: 04.09.2023.
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J- This single order would dispose of captioned two bail applications, as the same are arisen out of one and same crime. The Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 335 of 2023 has been filed by applicants Sohrab and Liaquat, whereas Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 337 of 2023 has been filed by applicants Faiz Muhammad, Shafiq-u-Rehman, Jameel Ahmed and Muhammad Rafique seeking their release on bail in case bearing F.I.R No.50/2022, registered with Police Station Bahoo Khoso of District Jacobabad, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 148 & 149 P.P.C. Earlier, their bail plea was declined by learned Court below vide common Order dated 14.06.2023 passed in Crl. Bail Appln. Nos.19 and 20 of 2023.
2. The facts of prosecution case, as depicted from para 2 of the impugned order, is as under:
“The allegations against applicants/ accused are that on 29.12.2022 at 04.15 p.m. at Katchi Sarak near Fish Farm Chowk Babal Jakhrani Chowk situated in Misripur, Taluka Thull, District Jacobabad, applicants/ accused Faiz Muhammad, Shafiq Rehman, Jameel Ahmed, Muhammad Rafique, Suhrab and Liaquat along with remaining accused persons having T.T pistols, in prosecution of common object committed murders of deceased persons namely Shah Dino and Mst. Khursheed, the uncle and aunt of complainant by causing them firearm injuries, hence this F.I.R.”
3. The learned counsel for the applicants have mainly contended that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant due to previous enmity; that incident took place in densely populated area during broad daylight on running road but no independent person has been cited as witness; that the deceased have suffered number of fires and it is impossible in such a hectic and fearsome situation to memorize the exact fires made by which accused and the seat of injury from such fires, therefore, the probability of consultation, deliberation and concoction could not be ruled out. Learned counsel further contended that, sister of deceased Mst. Khursheed Khatoon, namely, Mst. Marvi filed a direct complaint regarding the same murder and she has shown complainant of instant F.I.R and PW Hafeezullah as accused in the direct complaint and such direct complaint has been brought on regular file, as such the case has become of two versions and as of further enquiry. Lastly, they prayed for grant of bail to applicants.
4. In opposition, learned D.P.G. assisted by learned Advocate for complainant contended that, the applicants are nominated in the F.I.R with specific role of making fires upon two deceased resulting into their death; that there is recovery of crime weapons from all of the applicants/ accused, so also recovery of 15 empties, which according to FSL report matched with the weapons recovered from the applicants/ accused and this fact prima facie fully connect with the commission of offence of two murders. They further added that the offence, with which the applicants stood charged fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C and carry capital punishment. They vehemently opposed grant of bail in favour of the applicants.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned DPG appearing for the State and learned Advocate for complainant as well as perused the material available on record and also gone through the impugned order.
6. A careful perusal of the record reflects that, the F.I.R was lodged promptly. It was daytime incident and question of misidentification does not arise. Deceased Shah Dino was aged about 60 years, whereas Mst. Khursheed was aged about 52 years and they were husband and wife inter-se. It further appears from contents of F.I.R, that prior to this the same accused party murdered the son of deceased Shah Dino and Mst. Khursheed, namely, Waqar Ahmed and for withdrawal of that murder case the accused persons were threatening the complainant party and on their refusal they again committed two murders of complainant party. It further appears that the applicants have been nominated in the F.I.R with specific roles of making fires upon both the deceased with repetition in very brutal manner. The applicant/ accused Faiz Muhammad fired directly at Shahdino which hit on left side of his neck and another fire was hit to left side of his chest; applicant/ accused Shafiq-u-Rehman fired at Shahdino which hit him on his chest near left nipple and another fire was hit on the left elbow; applicant/ accused Jameel Ahmed also fired at Shahdino, which hit him on right hip and other fire landed on right thigh; applicant/ accused Suhrab fired from his T.T pistol at Shahdino, which hit to his right leg; applicant/ accused Muhammad Rafique made a fire upon Shahdino, which hit him on right thigh; then he again made fire shot to Shahdino, which hit on his right calf. It further perusal of F.I.R appears that applicant/ accused Faiz Muhammad fired from his weapon at Mst. Khursheed, which hit her upon right side of lower abdomen; applicant/ accused Muhammad Rafique fired from his T.T pistol at Mst. Khursheed, which hit at her right side of chest; applicant/ accused Shafiq-u-Rehman fired from his weapon at Mst. Khursheed, which hit at her on left side of abdomen; applicant/ accused Jameel directly fired from his T.T pistol at Mst. Khursheed, which hit at her right side of chest; applicant/ accused Suhrab fired from his weapon at Mst. Khursheed, which hit her at back of her head; applicant/ accused Liaquat made fire at Mst. Khursheed, which also hit on her right hip and both died at spot. It further appears from the record that crime weapons were recovered from the possession of applicants/ accused Faiz Muhammad, Jameel Ahmed, Shafiq-u-Rehman, Muhammad Rafique, Sohrab and Liaquat, and as per FSL report the empty bullets recovered by I.O from the place of incident matched with the weapons recovered from the applicants/ accused, thus this fact also connect them with the commission of alleged offence. The ocular evidence is also gets corroboration from medical evidence. The learned counsel empathized that, a lady, namely, Mst. Marvi (the sister of deceased Mst. Khursheed) has also filed direct complaint of the same incident, which has been brought on regular file and in that direct complaint, the complainant of this case Ashfaque Ahmed and eyewitness Hafeezullah are nominated as accused, as such according to learned counsel this case is of two versions. In this context, suffice it to say that as per learned Advocate for complainant Mst. Marvi is sister-in-law of applicant/ accused Faiz Muhammad, hence, it cannot be ruled out that she had tried to make out their case as case of two versions in order to save skin of the accused. However, this plea of second version of the same cannot be considered at this bail stage, as it would amount to deeper appreciation, which is unwarranted at bail stage. Moreover, nowhere it is mentioned that said Mst. Marvi had ever approached the concerned police and or Justice of Peace seeking registration of the F.I.R or recording her version in the same case/ F.I.R., and filed direct complaint after 11 days of the incident.
7. The perusal of the impugned order also shows that the learned trial Judge has considered all the material placed before him very plausibly and reasonably. He has answered every contention raised at the bar, and the observations of the learned trial Judge are also borne out from the record.
8. A tentative assessment of the material available with prosecution prima-facie connect the applicants/ accused with commission of alleged offence, in which two persons were done to death; such offence is carrying capital punishment and falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., that disentitle the applicants to concession of discretionary relief of bail. Accordingly, the bail applications in hands being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed.
9. Before parting with this order, it needs not to make clarification that the observations recorded hereinabove are tentative in nature, therefore, the trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever.