BILAWAL Versus State

ORDER

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J. ---The applicant is seeking his release on bail during the pendency of trial in a case registered against him and other co-accused through FIR 85/2020 of Police Station B-Section, District Khairpur under sections 302, 114, 148, 149, 337-A(i) and 337-F(i), P.P.C. Earlier, a similar plea of the applicant was declined by the trial Court through Order dated 30-06-2020.

2. After hearing the detailed arguments and perusal of the available records and going through the case laws relied upon, I have observed as under:

(a) The allegations against the applicant are that he and his sons namely Abubakar, Umer Farooq and Abdullah came to the house of complainant and on the instigations of applicant, his son Abubakar caught hold of the father of complainant while the remaining two sons of applicant caused iron-rod injuries to the father of complainant and also himself. Subsequent to injuries, the injured father of complainant namely Muhammad Usman succumbed to his injuries during treatment.

(b) Allegedly, the applicant and complainant parties are relatives and the motive of the incident is domestic disputation taken place sometime back.

(c) There is a delay of fortnight period, which is explained as the preoccupation of the applicant in treatment of his father and subsequently in his funeral and condolence process.

(d) It is not alleged that the applicant entered in the house of the complainant and from the body of the FIR, it appears that the incident took place outside the house.

(e) Allegedly, the applicant was shown empty handed and no overt act is attributed save to the allegation of instigating the co-accused.

(f) The wordings of instigation as mentioned in the FIR does not indicate that the applicant has directed for causing murder. As per FIR, the applicant has said to catch the deceased for which Sindhi word mentioned as Such directions or instigation does not amount to intention of applicant for killing the deceased.

(g) The prosecution contention that the applicant being father has commanded his sons to kill the deceased could not be appreciated, as the alleged words of applicant are not amounting to issue command of killing but only to catch or restrain the deceased.

3. Based on the above observation, I have no hesitation to declare that the applicant is entitled for bail, as such through short order dated 24-09-2020, he was granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (one hundred thousand) only to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

4. Before parting, I would like to make it clear that if the applicant, after getting bail, remains absent from trial Court and if the trial Court is satisfied about his absconding, then the trial Court will be competent to take every action against the said applicant and his surety including cancellation of bail without referring to this Court.

5. It is clarified that all of the above observations are purely tentative and will have no bearing upon the case of either party during trial.

SA/B-26/Sindh Bail granted.