ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-536 of 2023

(Mumtaz Ali Chandio Vs. The State)

 

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

 

For the hearing of the bail application.

 

05.07.2024.

 

Mr. Razi Khan Chandio, Advocate for the applicant.

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

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

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant with the rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of its common object, murdered Manzoor Ahmed by causing him fireshot injuries, and then went away by insulting complainant Asad Ali and making aerial firing to create harassment, for which the present case was registered.

 

2.        The applicant having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Dadu, 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 party to satisfy with him its previous enmity; the FIR is lodged with a delay of about one day and medical evidence conflicts the ocular evidence, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry, which is opposed by learned DPG for the State by contending that the applicant has actively participated in the commission of the incident by causing fire shot injury to the deceased and then has preferred to go in absconsion for about nine years.

 

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 went over to the deceased and then murdered him by causing him fireshot injuries. The specific role of causing one of the fireshot injuries to the deceased is attributed to the applicant. 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 only to satisfy its previous enmity with him. No doubt, the injury to the deceased which is attributed to the applicant, is not specified but for this reason, the applicant could not be admitted to bail in a case like the present one, wherein he had remained in unexplained absconsion for about nine years. The delay in lodgment of the FIR by one day is well explained in the FIR itself; the same even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. There may be a conflict between medical and ocular accounts but it would be better that the same be resolved by the trial Court after recording evidence. A deeper appreciation of the facts and circumstances is not permissible at the bail stage. 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.

 

6.        Having discussed above, the instant bail application is dismissed.

 

                                                                                                        JUDGE