THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

1^st Criminal Bail Application No.S-599 of 2022

Applicant:            Khalil Ahmed through Mr. Inam-ur-Rehman Abro, Advocate.

Respondent:        The State

Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of hearing:  22.12.2022

Date of Order:     22.12.2022

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Khalil Ahmed son of Haji Ahmed Veesar, seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No. 112/2022, offence under Sections 114, 302, 324, 148, 149, 504, 337-H(ii) PPC of the Police Station Ratodero. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero vide order dated 18.11.2022; hence he filed instant Criminal Bail Application.

2.                The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application  and F.I.R., same could not gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3.                Per learned counsel, the applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that infact the complainant party had committed murder of Din Muhammad Brohi, who had sustained firearm injury and the applicant has been roped with this case, no active role has been assigned against him and mere aerial firing has been assigned in the F.I.R. He lastly prayed that the applicant is in jail and no more required for further investigation and prayed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.

4.                On the other hand learned D.P.G has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused. However, he submits that the applicant/accused has not played active role in commission of the offence.

5.                On the last date of hearing, notice was issued to the complainant, but he is called absent, no intimation is received. 

6.                Heard and perused.  No doubt the name of the applicant/accused is appeared in F.I.R. but no specific role has been assigned against him, the only role assigned against him is the role of aerial firing. In the case of Qurban Ali vs. The State (2017 SCMR 279), wherein Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has granted bail to the accused, who had not been attributed any overt act during the occurrence except the role of raising lalkara. The trial Court in such circumstances has to determine, after recording pro and contra evidence, whether the accused were vicariously liable for the act of their co-accused and that case was one of the further enquiry. In another case of Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State (1996 SCMR 1125), the bail was granted to the accused on the ground that despite being allegedly armed with deadly weapons like rifle, gun and hatchet only caused simple blunt injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses using the wrong side of their weapons. The question whether the accused in such a situation shared their common intention with the co-accused who had caused the death of the deceased needed further enquiry.   It is the trial Court to see whether they have caused the offence or not and at bail stage only tentative assessment could be made.   Learned counsel for the applicant/accused prays that the applicant/accused is in jail and he is no more required for further investigation and his further detention will not improve the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out case for grant of bail under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. The challan has been submitted and the applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation. 

7.                Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/-(Rupees One Hundred Thousands only) and P.R.Bond in the like amount to  the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

8.                Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

                                J U D G E

Manzoor