BAHRAM Versus ZUBAIR AHMED

ORDER

MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR J.--- By means of this Misc. application, the applicant/complainant has challenged the order dated 25.09.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Sukkur, whereby respondents Nos.1 to 11 were granted pre-arrest bail in Crime No.23/2017, offence under sections 302, 311, 337-H(2), 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Jhangro District Sukkur.

2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Misc. application are that on 25.06.2017 at 1200 hours near Cattle Pirri, Ali Wahan, respondents Nos.1 to 11 in prosecution of their common object with main accused Ali Hyder committed the murder of deceased Illahi Bux by firing upon him. The applicant/complainant shifted the dead body to Taluka Hospital Rohri and after postmortem and funeral lodged the FIR on 26.06.2017 at 1400 hours. The police after usual investigation submitted final report of the case before concerned Court.

3. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the applicant/ complainant that the FIR was lodged promptly and respondents Nos.1 to 9 are nominated with specific role of firing while names of respondents Nos.10 and 11 were disclosed during investigation; that the respondents Nos.1 to 11 have facilitated main accused Ali Hyder, hence they are equally responsible for the commission of the murder of the deceased; that the respondents Nos. 1 to 11 have committed the offence which falls within prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. By contenting so he sought for cancellation of bail.

4. Conversely, learned D.P.G. opposed the Misc. application and supported the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sukkur and prayed for dismissal of instant Misc. application.

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the applicant-complainant, learned D.P.G. and perused the record. It is a matter of record that FIR of the incident was lodged with delay of 26 hours for which no plausible explanation has been given by the applicant- complainant, hence possibility of consultation before FIR cannot be ruled out. The role of firing upon deceased is attributed to co-accused Ali Hyder, while allegation against respondents Nos. 1 to 11 is that they made aerial firing. As per final report, main accused Ali Hyder, respondents Nos. 7, 9 and 10 were found innocent during investigation and their names were placed in Col. No.2 of the challan, no doubt they were joined by learned Magistrate but BWs were issued against them, therefore it was rightly held that the case against the respondents requires further inquiry.

6. Furthermore, the principles for grant of bail and its cancellation are altogether different. Once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction by exercising its powers then strong and exceptional grounds are required for interference. The discretion exercised by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sukkur in granting pre-arrest bail to respondents is not arbitrary or against the settled principles of law, hence does not require interference by this Court. In this respect reliance can be placed upon case of Muzaffar Iqbal v. Muhammad Imran Aziz and others (2004 SCMR 231).

7. In view of above discussion, instant' Misc. application being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine.

SA/B-12/Sindh Application dismissed.