ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-251 of 2024

(Sajid Vs. The State)

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For the hearing of the bail application.

01.07.2024.

Mr. Abdul Basit Kalhoro, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State.

  -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- It is alleged that the applicant with the rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of its common object, murdered Ghulam Raza, Mirzan, Ali Madad and Mashooq by causing them fireshot injuries and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for which the present case was registered with P.S Jhabar Shaikh.

2.                    The applicant having been refused bail by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, has sought the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 497 Cr. PC.

3.        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant to satisfy its old enmity with him; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with a delay of about one day; the applicant is ill and is in custody for about two years without effective progress in the trial of his case, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry, which is opposed by learned D.P.G for the State by contending that the applicant has actively participated in the commission of the incident by causing him fire shot injury to deceased Mirzan.

4.        Heard arguments and perused the record.

5.        The applicant is named in FIR with an allegation that he with the rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of its common object, went over to the complainant party and murdered four innocent persons only to satisfy their grudge with them. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant is innocent and has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. The delay in lodgment of FIR by one day is well explained in FIR itself; the same even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. Nothing has been brought on record which may suggest that the applicant is ill. No delay in trial is attributed to the prosecution, therefore, the applicant could not claim his release on bail on point of delay in the trial. The offence in face of it is appearing to be heinous. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence with which he is charged and no case for his release on bail on point of further inquiry is made out.

6.        Consequent to the above discussion, the instant bail application is dismissed with direction to the learned trial Court to dispose of the very case against the applicant preferably within three months, after receipt of a copy of this order.

JUDGE