ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-54 of 2024

(Zulfiqar Kalhoro Vs. The State)

 

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

 

For the hearing of the bail application.

 

08.07.2024.

 

Mr. Rashid Mustafa Solangi, 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, by committing trespass into the house of complainant Ghulam Murtaza, attempted to commit theft of his cattle and on his resistance fired and killed Nizamuddin and then went by making aerial firing to create harassment, for which the present case was registered.

 

2.        The applicant having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 3rd 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 party; the FIR is lodged with a delay of about two days and he has been in custody for about two years, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on point of hardship. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the cases of Muhammad Yousuf Vs.The State (2000 SCMR-79), Shabeer VS. The State(2012 SCMR-354) and Ali Akbar VS. The State and others (2020 SCMR-1225).

4.        Learned DPG for the State has opposed the release of the applicant on bail by contending that he has a criminal record and has also remained in absconsion for about four years.

 

5.        Heard arguments and perused the record.

6.        The applicant is named in FIR with an allegation that he and co-accused Arab alias Kuraro murdered the deceased by causing him fire shot injuries when he put resistance to dacoity. 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. No doubt, FIR is lodged with a delay of about two days but such delay is explained plausibly in FIR itself; the same even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. The applicant after the incident preferred to go in absconsion for about four years; such absconsion being unexplained could not be overlooked. No doubt the applicant has been in custody for about two years but as per the progress report furnished by the learned trial Court; it is the applicant who is found defeating the trial by making no cross at least to the three witnesses who have been examined, therefore, he could not claim his release on bail on point of hardship and delay in completion of the trial, particularly when he is found having criminal antecedents. 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 is made.

7.        The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and the circumstances. In none of the cases, so relied upon, the accused was found defeating the trial.

 

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

 

                                                                                                         JUDGE