KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---This single order will dispose of both the captioned bail applications, which arise out of the same Crime No.16 of 2009 registered at Police Station Sehwan, District Jamshoro, for offence under Sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., whereby applicants Meer Hassan son of Pir Bux Leghari and Mumtaz Ali son of Ameer Bux Leghari seek their release on post arrest bail in the case, emanating from the above Crime, after their bail plea has been declined by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana by dismissing their bail applications by two separate orders dated 02.08.2018 and 1 1.05.2017 respectively .
2. Facts of the case of prosecution in nutshell are that on 06.02.2009, at 2330 hours, complainant Ghulam Abid son of Ghulam Sarwar Leghari, appeared at Police Station Sehwan, District Jamshoro and lodged the subject FIR, mainly alleging therein that on the said date i.e. 06.02.2009, at about 1900 hours, near the breaker of Garhi Wari, Indus Highway , the present applicant along with co-accused named in the FIR, duly armed with deadly weapons viz., KKs, rifle and pistol, committed murder of deceased Rustam Khan, the uncle of the complainant, by making fires upon him. After the investigation, the challan was submitted against the accused including the applicants, who were shown absconders in the challan.
3. Mr. Safdar Ali G. Bhutto, learned advo cate for applicant Meer Hassan Leghari has mainly contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the complainant party due to previous enmity between the parties; that complainant and other P.Ws are related inter se and are setup witnesses; that the applicant was arrested on 15.4.2015 and has remained in custody for more than 4 years and the trial has not been concluded. The learned Counsel prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
4. Mr. Jehangir Rahujo, learned advocate for applicant Mumtaz Ali has mainly contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant party due to previous enmity; that the incident is shown to have taken place on main road near Village Garhi Wari, Indus Highway , but no independent person was cited as witness; that the case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the applicant; and, that co-accused Mashooq Leghari is on bail granted to him by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2016. Learned Coun sel prays that the applicant may be released on bail.
5. Mr. Athar Abbas Solangi, learned advocate for the complainant has opposed the bail applications, contending that both the applicants are nominated in the FIR; that specific role of firing at dece ased Rustam Khan is attributed to them; and, that the applicants remained fugitive from law for considerable time. Learned Counsel prays for dismissal of these bail applications.
6. Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, learned Deputy Prosecutor General endorsing the contentions of learned advocate for the complainant, has opposed the grant of bail to the applicants.
7. I have considered the submission of learned Advocates for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
8. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that bail applications earlier filed by both the applicants were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide an exhaustive order dated 23.05.2015; specific role of firing at deceased Rustam Khan is attributed to applicants Meer Hassan and Mumtaz Ali, which hit deceased Rustam Khan; the medical evidence is in line with the ocular account, as the postmortem report reflects that deceased Rustam Khan had firearm injuries on his vital parts of body i.e. his left eye and head and his entire mouth was broken into pieces; recovery of empties from the place of occurrence was effected and vehicle used in the commission of offence by the accused was also recovered; the earlier bail applications of both the applicants were dismissed on merits by the learned trial Court vide order , dated 23.05.2015, but they did not challenge that order and then both of them repeated their second bail applications separately before the learned trial Court without any fresh ground. Even, the fact of dismissal of bail application on merits earlier filed by applicant Meer Hassan has not been mentioned in the certificate annexed to the bail application , which is against the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Nazir Ahmed v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 241), as is revealed from the impugned order dated 02.08.2018, passed by the learned IV-addititnal Sessions Judge, Larkana, dismissing the bail application of applicant Meer Hassan; furthermore, after framing of charge complainant and P.Ws repeatedly appeared before the learned trial Court, but the matter was adjourned time and again due to absence of learned Counsel for the accused; on 2.08.2018 the complainant and his P.Ws were present and insisted upon recording their evidence by moving even application in writing before the learned trial Court, but the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused had declined to proceed with the matter , stating that he was only engaged for arguing the bail application and he had no concern with the trial of the case, as is observed by the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana in the impugned order dated 02.08.2018. Moreover , by now the prosecution has already examined eight P.Ws, namely , complainant Ghulam Abid, Dr. Ghulam Mustafa Leghari, ASI Abdul Sattar Bhand, Medical Officer Dr. Mohammad Ibrahim Lakhair , Syed Niaz Hussain Shah, mashir Khair Mohammad Leghari, SIP Lutufullah Malah, and I.O./Inspector Ayaz Ali Panju, as is evident from the progress report dated 18.05.2019 furnished by the learned trial Court, which further reveals that charge was framed against the accused on 25.02.2017, whereafter the trial Court could not proceed with the matter mostly on account of non-appearance of the learned advocates for the accused, which shows that the accused were instrumental in causing delay in conclusion of the trial. The case of co accused Mashooque Leghari, who was granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 05.12.2016, is quite distinguished from the case of present applicants, for, mere presence of said co-accused Mashooque was shown at the place of incident and no active role was assigned to him in the FIR and no P.W was yet examined by the prosecution at that time, and whereas both the applicants are assigned specific role of causing firearm injuries to deceased Rustam Khan resulting into his death. It is worthwhile to mention here that all the grounds urged by the applicants were already rejected by the learned trial Court while dismissing their earlier bail applications on merits vide order dated 23.05.2015 and no fresh ground has been advanced by the applicants for grant of bail. Under these peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the applicants are not entitled to the grant of concession of bail. Above are the reasons of short announced by me on 14.11.2019, whereby the captioned bail applications were dismissed.
9. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding these bail applications, which shall not, in any manner , influence the learned trial Court at the time of final decision of the case.