IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

1^st Criminal Bail No.S-723 of 2024

Shahmir Kharos and another

V/S

The State

Applicants:                                        1. Shahmir son of Ghulam Rasool

2. Fazul son of Ghulam Rasool both by caste Kharos

Through Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate.

State:                                                  Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional

Prosecutor General, Sindh.  

Date of Hearing:                               12.03.2025

Date of Decision:                             12.03.2025

O R D E R

Omar Sial, J.-   Shahmir and Fazul seek post-arrest bail in crime number 12 of 2024 registered under sections 302, 34, 311 P.P.C. at the Usman Essani at Bado police station.

2.         The F.I.R. was registered on 04.10.2024 on behalf of the State/HC Muhammad Ashraf Mangi. Mangi recorded that on 03.10.2024, they heard fires from village Qadir Bux Waggan and after usual arrangements, rushed to the pointed place where it transpired that accused Abdul Wahab, Ameer Ali, Akbar and Arif Kharos have killed Mst. Naseem; they shifted the dead body to the hospital for postmortem and nobody came to lodge F.I.R., hence it was recorded on behalf of the State.

3.         I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Additional Prosecutor General. My observations and findings are as follows.

4.         It has been explained to me that the two applicants were not present at the crime scene, and therefore, their names were not included in the F.I.R. However, on 16.10.2024, twelve days after the alleged incident, the complainant recorded a further statement in which she alleged that the two applicants had worked behind the scenes in orchestrating the murder. The complainant has given no source of this information but has merely recorded that “he got to know” that the applicants were also part of the conspiracy to murder the girl. The investigating officer deemed it appropriate not to conduct any investigation. No recovery has been affected from either applicant.

5.         Admittedly, apart from the statement made by the complainant on 16.10.2024, there is no other evidence against the applicants. What the complainant overheard, which made her doubt the applicants', will have to be tested through cross-examination at trial. At this stage, I believe that the sole statement made by the complainant to nominate the applicants is insufficient to deny the applicants bail, nor can I conclusively eliminate malafide by throwing the net wide.

6.         Given the above, the applicants are admitted to bail against a surety of Rs. 200,000 each and P.R. Bonds for the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

JUDGE

Manzoor