SHC dismisses bail plea in murder case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the bail application of a man in a murder and attempt to murder case. The applicant, Abu Bakar, was booked by the police for murdering Sher Afzal in the Pirabad area on November 9, 2023.

According to the prosecution, the complainant, Saira, had alleged that the applicant along with her ex-spouse Arshad Khan killed her spouse Sher Afzal and injured her when they went to obtain custody of their daughter.

A counsel for the applicant submitted that he was falsely implicated due to enmity and ulterior motives of the complainant. He submitted that the only eyewitness named in the FIR was the complainant herself, who had now forgiven the applicant and recorded her no-objection to his acquittal.

He said that a co-accused, Attaullah, had already been granted bail, hence the rule of consistency should be applied in favour of the applicant. An additional prosecutor general opposed the bail plea and referred to the nature of allegations, highlighting that the applicant had specifically been attributed the role of firing upon the complainant as well as causing fatal injuries to Afzal.

A single bench of the high court comprising Justice Khalid Hussain Shahani after perusal of the record observed that the role ascribed to the applicant in the FIR and subsequent proceedings was not of peripheral nature.

The high court observed that as per the testimony of the complainant recorded before the trial court, there was no denial of the fact that the applicant had fired at her, causing injury in her left side waist.

The court observed that though the complainant had subsequently expressed forgiveness for the applicant and stated that she would not object to his acquittal, such a pardon could not automatically entitle the accused to bail in the absence of a proper compromise recognised under the law.

The high court observed that in the instant case, the complainant’s injury stood unchallenged, and an innocent person lost his life in the same incident. The SHC observed that the applicant’s counsel had submitted that the complainant had since moved to Afghanistan after contracting a marriage and may not return for a formal compromise, however, the mere unavailability of the complainant to pursue compromise did not by itself justify the grant of bail when the ocular account and medical evidence both prima facie supported the prosecution’s case.

The high court observed that in the present case, the applicant was nominated with a specific role and the medical report was also supportive in this respect. The SHC observed that keeping in view of the specific role attributed to the applicant, the ocular testimony of the complainant, and the absence of a formal and complete compromise duly verified by the trial court, the applicant had failed to make out a case of further inquiry and dismissed the bail application. The high court observed that the applicant shall be at liberty to file a compromise application before the trial court in accordance with law.