ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-237 of 2024

(Rashid Ali Gilal Vs. The State)

 

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

 

For the hearing of the bail application.

 

15.07.2024.

 

Mr. Sher Ali Chandio, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Azizullah Buriro, Advocate for the complainant.

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

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

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- Facts, in brief, necessary for the disposal of the instant bail application are that the applicant was found harassing Amanullah, the son of complainant Attaullah, who to save from such harassment, shifted him to Balochistan, which annoyed the applicant, he with one more culprit abducted Samiullah aged about 07 years, another son of the complainant to compel him to get his son Amanullah back from Balochistan to continue with him his friendship, he was called back, yet the applicant did not release abductee Samiullah; later-on, his dead body was found in a Canal by the police party of P.S Shah Panjo; on examination, he was found to have been murdered by throttling his neck after subjecting him to sodomy, for which the present case was registered with P.S Radhan.

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, there is no eye witness to the death of the deceased and the DNA report does not implicate the applicant in the commission of the incident; therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on the point of further inquiry.

4.         Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the release of the applicant on bail by contending that he has committed a heinous offence, that is affecting society at large.

5.         Heard arguments and perused the record.

6.         The name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR with the specific allegation that he abducted Samiullah, the deceased to compel the complainant to get back his son Amanullah from Balochistan to continue with him his friendship and then murdered him by strangulating his throat after subjecting him to sodomy; such allegation takes support from postmortem report. 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. None has indeed seen the applicant committing the death of the deceased and/or subjecting him to sodomy but there could be made no denial to the fact that he was seen by the complainant and his witness taking away the deceased with him lastly to compel the complainant to get his son Amanullah back to continue with him his friendship. In such a situation, it would be immaterial to say that there is an eye-witness to the death of the deceased and/or subjecting him to sodomy. The DNA report being negative is not enough to exclude the applicant from the commission of the incident in a summary manner, as deeper appreciation of the facts and circumstances are not permissible at the bail stage. The delay in lodgment of FIR by six days is well explained in FIR itself; the same even otherwise, could not be resolved by this Court at this 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 is made.

7.         Under the discussed circumstances, the instant bail application is dismissed.

                                                                                                           JUDGE