The Sindh High Court has dismissed the bail application of a man in a murder and attempt to murder case. Ghulam Nabi was booked by the police for murdering Pyar Ali and injuring minors Imtiaz and Irshad on May 6, 2024.
According to the prosecution, the applicant was arrested by the Mirpur Sakro police on account of a dispute between the parties over the affairs of their kids. The prosecution alleged that a co-accused, Mushtaq, instigated the applicant and accused Masroof to commit murder of the complainant party upon which both the accused shot fires murdering Ali and injuring the two minors.
A counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not guilty of the murder. He said that the role assigned to Nabi was of injuring Imtiaz and Arshad. He argued that the injuries to the minors did not fall within the prohibitory clause and were punishable with imprisonment of only three years, hence, the applicant is entitled to bail. An additional prosecutor general and the complainant’s counsel opposed granting bail to the applicant stating that he had actively participated in the firing and injured two witnesses.
They said the applicant had changed as many as five counsel in the trial in order to cause delay, and even on the last date of hearing, he moved an application for adjournment even though witnesses were available.
A single bench of the high court comprising Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed that the SHC had considered submissions of the parties and was of the view that the applicant was not entitled to the concession of bail on the ground that prima facie he appeared to have actively participated in the incident, in which one person lost his life and two others were injured.
The high court observed that the role of injuring two witnesses at the spot had to be considered in the entire context of the incident, in which the applicant, who was armed with a pistol, fired at the complainant and injured at least two persons. The bench observed that it appeared that the applicant was not interested in proceedings with the trial and had been moving adjournment applications despite presence of witnesses.
The SHC observed that keeping in view of prima facie evidence against the applicant, the bail application was dismissed. The high court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial and conclude it expeditiously by discouraging adjournment applications.
