ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Appln. No.S-57   of  2010.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

29.3.2010.

For hearing.

Mr. Arif Safdar Ghori, advocate for applicant.

Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, State Counsel.

                             ----------------------

                   Vide order, dated 8.3.2010 applicants Mir Ashique Hussain and Muhammad Hussain, both by caste Brohi, were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail, which is sought to be confirmed in Crime No.14/2008 of PS Garhi Khero, for offence u/s 17(4), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 & sections 302, 148, 149, PPC, which is pending trial in the Court of learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad vide Sessions Case No.613/2008.

                   Precisely, the facts of the prosecution case as per F.I.R. are that on 27.3.2008, at 10.00 a.m., on Jacobabad Road near Dad Muhammad Luhar curve situated in Deh Allahabad, Taluka Garhi Khero, present applicants/accused alongwith co-accused Imdad Hussain Brohi, Mehar and absconding accused BIland, Usman, Barkat, Abdul Nabi alias Raja Noor Nabi, Eid Muhammad, Hussain, Shafi Hussain Bux alias Husoo and two unidentified persons, being armed with K.Ks, committed robbery of cash and gold, as mentioned in the F.I.R., and upon resistance offered by Guhram, they made straight fires, which resulted in causing death of Guhram at the hands of absconding accused Biland, Abdul Nabi and Shafi Muhammad.

                   Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that there is general allegation against the present applicants of committing robbery and making ineffective aerial firing.  He further contended that no role of causing any injury to the deceased or any body else in the complainant party has been attributed to the present applicant.  He further contended that co-accused Imdad Hussain Brohi with similar role has been granted bail by this Court and further that the case is not likely to conclude in near future for the reason that whereabouts of the complainant and prosecution witnesses are not known and the learned trial Court has issued proclamations under Sections 87 & 88, Cr.P.C. 

                   Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, learned State Counsel, did not oppose grant of bail to the applicants on the ground that since co-accused Imdad Hussain Brohi with similar role has been granted bail, therefore, on the rule of consistency present applicants are entitled to same concession.

                   I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available on record.

                   The contentions raised by both the learned Counsel have been borne out from the record.  It is admitted position that co-accused Imdad Hussain with similar role was granted post arrest bail by this Court.  Certified true copy of such bail granting order in favour of co-accused Imdad Hussain is available on record.  It is well-settled law that abscondence, if any, should come in the way of an accused person for the grant of bail before arrest, if otherwise he becomes entitled for grant of bail on merits.  Moreover, the whereabouts of complainant and prosecution witnesses are not known, against whom proclamation under sections 87 & 88, Cr.P.C have been issued, therefore, conclusion of trial in foreseeable future is not possible. 

                   Upshot of above discussion is that the applicants entitled to the concession of bail not only on the principle of consistency and equal treatment, but also on merits.  Therefore, pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant was confirmed vide short order, dated 26.3.2010 and above are the reasons in support thereof.

                                                                                                JUDGE