1. ' Muhammad Mithal (respondent No,1) was granted bail by learned IInd Additional Sthions Judge, Shikarpur on 23-8-2002 on the ground that the only allegation against him for commission of the offence of Qatl-i-Amd was of conspiracy, but neither he was present at the spot nor he played any active role.
2. ' Through the instant application, cancellation of bail is sought on the ground that the version given in the F.I.R. And also by the witness that deceased Imdad at the time of occurrence cried that he was being killed in consequence of conspiracy hatched by Muhammad Mithal and Qalander Bux.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro, learned counsel for respondent No, 1 and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo, learned counsel. For State and perused the relevant material.
4. ' The background of instant case is that Muhammad Mithal the respondent No,1 had obtained a loan of Rs, One lac from deceased Imdad, but he avoided to return the same, on which an application was made to SSP, Malir, Karachi and ultimately in consequence of the said complaint, Muhammad Mithal paid Rs,50,000. For the balance the complainant party had gone to the house of Hakim Ali in connection with that affair. They stayed for the night and at 4-30 a.m. Four accused persons Ghulam Kadir, Bahadur, Jindo and Karim Bux armed with Klashnikovs attacked them and Ghulam Kadir made the first fire at Imdad Ali. According to F.I.R. Imdad Ali raised a cry, saying that Muhammad Mithal and Ghulam Kadir had conspired to get him killed. Thereafter Karim Bux fired from his Klashnikov, which too hit him. The culprits then went away.
5. ' Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, learned counsel for applicant submitted that since Imdad Ali is dead and the aforesaid version, which was heard by complainant and other witnesses may be treated as dying declaration implicating the applicant as such it was not a case in which the bail could be granted.
6. ' Mr. Asif Ali Abdur Razak Soomro, learned counsel for respondent No,1, Muhammad Mithal submitted that the enmity arising out of money matter would react both ways and since Muhammad Mithal was not present at the spot, the sole version recorded in the F.I.R. By itself was not enough to establish the guilt of applicant, particularly, when bail is granted, it is not a fit case for cancellation. The same view was subscribed by-learned State Counsel Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo.
7. ' The contention of Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro is fully supported by the authority Amanullah Shah v. State PLD 1996 SC 241, wherein it is held that case of a conspirator or abettor who was not present at the spot stands at a lower footing than that of the accused mitigating his companion to commit the crime being himself present. It is also held that such conspiracy can very easily be set up when parties are inimically disposed as possibility of false implication of the opponent is very much there. The observations were also made by the Honourable Supreme Court against cancellation of bail in such a situation.
8. ' The authority fully applies to the instant case and respectfully following the dictum of Honourable Supreme Court, I am not inclined to cancel the bail, which has been granted for cogent reasons.
9. ' Resultantly, the application is dismissed.