ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No.D-44    of  2013.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE.

29.01.2014.

Present:

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi,

                                                          Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Goarar,

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For orders on M. A. No.2152/2013.

3. For orders on M. A. No.2243/2013.

4. For hearing.

Mr. Shahbaz Ali M. Brohi, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, Asst. Prosecutor General.

O R D E R.

Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J.-  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 27.8.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur in Crl. Bail Application No.45/2013, filed in Special Case No.10/2013, arising from crime No.55/2013, registered at Police Station New Foujdari, Shikarpur, under Sections 302, 324, 353, 395, 148, 149, 109, PPC read with Sections 6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, whereby the bail application of the applicant was dismissed, the applicant has filed this bail application under Section 497, Cr.P.C read with Section 21-D of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, seeking his release on bail on his furnishing surety.

          2.       Brief facts as stated in the F.I.R are that one Sikandar son of Abdul Kareem Junejo was confined at District Jail, Shikarpur in connection with crime No.07/2013 of PS New Foujdari, under Sections 365-B, 148, 149, PPC and the F.I.R of that case was quashed by a Division Bench of this Court at Karachi in C. P. No.D-616/2013, vide order dated 20.3.2013 in the light of statement of alleged abductee girl Mst. Sameena recorded by the I.O. in Court at Karachi.  As result of quashment of proceedings of the said case, Sikandar Junejo was ordered to be released from jail.  However, since Sikandar Junejo had moved application before the concerned Magistrate for providing proper protection/escort from the jail upto his village, therefore, on 26.3.2013, complainant of this case, namely, ASI Javed Mohammad Abro of PS New Foujdari, Shikarpur, under the orders of the III-Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, accompanied Sikandar Junejo from District Jail, Shikarpur alongwith his staff, so also relatives of Sikandar Junejo, named in the F.I.R.  It is alleged that when they reached at the old bridge of Sindh Canal, situated on Sukkur Road of Shikarpur town, 20/25 armed persons intercepted them, out of whom 17 including the present applicant Roshan Luhur were identified, while eight accused persons were unknown, who got down Sikandar Junejo and killed him by making fires upon him and they also fired at P.C Ali Shah causing injury at his left foot and then went away.         

          3.       Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant crime on account of enmity with the complainant party.  It is further contended that the allegation in the F.I.R that the deceased received bullet injury from T.T. Pistol recovered from the applicant is not supported by the medical report, hence the matter requires further enquiry.  It has been contended that the applicant may be released on bail subject to furnishing surety.

          4.       Conversely, learned Asst. Prosecutor General has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant, who, according to learned Asst. Prosecutor General, has been nominated in the F.I.R with specific role, whereas recovery of crime weapon has also been effected from the applicant.  It is further contended that the other prosecution witnesses have also corroborated the version of the complainant as recorded in the F.I.R and there is sufficient material to connect the present applicant with the alleged crime, hence the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.  It is further contended that the trial is proceeding regularly before the learned trial Court.

          5.       We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Asst. Prosecutor General and perused the record.

          6.       From tentative assessment of the record it is observed that the applicant has been named in the F.I.R with specific role for having fired at deceased, namely, Sikandar Junejo, who died as a result of firearm injuries.  The other prosecution witnesses including the eyewitnesses have also corroborated the version of the complainant recorded in the F.I.R, whereas the recovery of crime weapon has also been made from him.  The trial is proceeding before the trial Court.  Prima facie, the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as false, as there is sufficient material on record to connect the applicant/accused with the alleged crime.  Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the instant bail application, which was dismissed vide short order dated 29.01.2014 in the morning and these are the reasons for such short order.

          7.       Needless to observe that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, whereas the trial court shall not be influenced by such observations and shall decide the case strictly on merits and on the basis of material available on record.

                                                                                                JUDGE

                                                                   JUDGE