SHC dismisses bail pleas of three men in murder case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed bail application of three men in a murder case.

According to the prosecution, a complainant lodged an FIR on July 18, 2024, at the Aziz Bhatti police station stating that the applicants, Rizwan Baloch, Nasir and Hamza, along with others had fired at his brother who in order to save himself went inside the shop of a hairdresser but the applicants followed him and shot him, as a result of which he died while the son of a hairdresser also sustained bullet injuries.

The applicants’ counsel pressed three grounds for bail viz. previous enmity, plea of alibi and that he was not heard by the learned trial court while deciding the bail application.

The counsel referred to an FIR already registered against the applicants in which the prosecution witness Waseem was the complainant.

Regarding plea of alibi, the counsel said certain record of CDR showed that all three applicants were not present at the place of incident. Besides, he produced some snaps of CCTV camera, which, according to him, pointed out to a different location of the applicants than the one articulated by the prosecution in the case.

He also pointed out to the CDR record of the complainant party which, he argued, showed that neither was the complainant nor were the witnesses present at the spot when the firing took place.

A counsel for the complainant and the deputy prosecutor general opposed the bail applications submitting that the applicants had been named in the FIR with the specific role of shooting the deceased as they were already known to the complainant on account of previous enmity, which had been admitted by the counsel for the applicants.

They said that as far as the CDR and other record relied upon by the defence counsel was concerned, it had not been verified and its genuineness was yet to be determined by the trial court.

They said that the investigation officer had submitted in his report that the applicants had been found involved in the case and all the CDR reports and other record showed their presence at the spot.

A single bench of the SHC comprising Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed that the applicants had been nominated in the FIR with the specific role of firing at the deceased man as well as the hairdresser’s son.

The high court observed that as far as previous enmity was concerned, it cut both the ways and unless the entire evidence was recorded, it could not be concluded by making a tentative assessment of the record that the applicants had been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of previous enmity.

The SHC observed that a second investigation officer of the case who after a thorough investigation had found the applicants to be present at the spot and involved in the case.

The high court observed that in view of two investigations pointing out to presence of the applicants at the spot, the record relied by the defence could not be given much weight at this stage particularly when independent witnesses, who were present at the spot through 161 CrPC statements had verified the presence of the applicants and their specific role.

The high court observed that in this case prima facie accusation was not only supported by the contents of the FIR but by two investigations in addition to relevant record, including CDR and 161 CrPC statements of the witnesses as well as medical evidence.

The bench observed that it did not find the applicants entitled for extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail and dismissed the application by recalling the earlier ad-interim pre arrest bail granted to the applicants.