IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,
LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 506 of 2023.
Applicant: Wahid Bux & 3 others, through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate.
Complainant: Naseer Muhammad, through Mr. Riaz Hussain A. Khoso, Advocate.
Respondent: The State, through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.
Date of Hearing: 28.03.2024.
Date of Order: 28.03.2024.
ORDER
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J- Through captioned bail application, applicants Wahid Bux, Ali Gul, Ali Dino and Shabir Ahmed have sought for post arrest bail in the case emanating from F.I.R No. 56 of 2023, registered at P.S Drig [P.P Dost Ali] (District Kamber-Shahdadkot), for offence punishable under Sections 302, 324, 337-H (2), 114, 148, 149 P.P.C. Similar prayer of the applicants was declined through order dated 25.8.2023 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber.
2. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that, on 15.7.2023 complainant Naseer Muhammad set the law into motion by lodging F.I.R No.56/2023. Per F.I.R, the allegation against applicants is that on fateful day i.e. 14.7.2023, they along with co-accused came at the scene of alleged offence. The co-accused Allah Dino alias Baggan instigated rest of accused and on his instigation, two co-accused Qurban and Riaz fired at Raza Muhammad, while co-accused Bashir fired at Abdul Raheem, co-accused Altaf fired at Muhib. The present applicants are alleged to have made aerial firing their respective weapons i.e. Kalashnikov type rifle and guns (repeater). Injured Raza Muhammad died on the way to hospital, while rest of injured were admitted in hospital and out of them one injured, namely, Abdul Raheem also succumbed to injures. The motive for the alleged incident as set-out in the F.I.R is previous ill-will between the parties on the issue of a plot.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that, F.I.R is delayed for about one day. Previous grudge and ill-will between the parties is admitted by complainant in F.I.R, as such in background of previous grudge false implication of the applicants in this case cannot be ruled out. He further contended that no any active role of causing firearm injury to any of deceased or injured is assigned to applicants except only role of aerial-firing. Per learned counsel, in these circumstances, the question of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of applicants with principal co-accused would be determined at the time of trial. Lastly, he prayed for grant of bail to applicants.
4. Conversely, learned Advocate for the complainant vehemently opposed grant of bail to the applicants on the grounds that applicants are nominated in the F.I.R, showing their physical presence on the spot with role of aerial firing thereby facilitating their co-accused to commit murder of two innocent persons and injuring one person. He further added that, there is also recovery of offensive weapons as well as empties from crime scene, which proves presence of the applicants on the spot. The offenses with which applicants are charged, carries capital punishment and falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned Addl. P.G. while adopting the arguments advanced by learned Advocate for complainant also opposed the bail application.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. Perusal of the record reflects that, although there is only allegation of ineffective firing (aerial-firing) against applicants, yet they allegedly came at place of incident in company of co-accused duly armed with deadly weapons and physically participated in the commission of offence; they are the planners and provided assistance and facilitated to executors i.e. their co-accused for murdering two persons and injuring one person. Per contents of F.I.R, the parties are already inimical towards each other over the issue of “plot”, and in such background it could not be assured at this stage that collaboration of applicants with principal co-accused and aerial firing by them was proverbial and common. Moreover, the incident was witnessed by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and their presence at the scene of offence has been described within the body of F.I.R and 161 Cr.P.C statements. Furthermore, there is recovery of crime weapons from the applicants as well as empty shells of 12-bore and 7 m.m. from the scene of offence, which suggests presence of the applicants at the spot. More-so, the offenses with which the applicants are charged carry capital punishment and falls within prohibition as contained in Section 497 Cr.P.C.
7. From a tentative assessment of all the above factors and the material available on record, prima-facie there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants have been guilty of the alleged offense, which is carrying capital punishment of death or imprisonment for life, dis-entitling them to grant of discretionary relief of bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands dismissed.
8. However, the learned trial Court is directed to pace-up trial of the case and conclude it within a period of preferably six (06) months.
9. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that, observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice case of either party at trial.
Judge
Ansari