ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

HYDERABAD.

Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S- 1011  of   2015

DATE     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

15.10.2015.

Mr. Nouman Sahito, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Mazhar Ali Leghari, Advocate for complainant a/w complainant.

Mr. Iram Ahmed, D.D.P.P.

                   =

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J:         Applicant / accused Abdul Wahid seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.08/2009 registered at Police Station Khybrani for offence u/s 342, 392 PPC & 20 H.O.

2.       Learned counsel for the applicant Abdul Wahid contended that complainant has sworn affidavit in which he has not implicated the applicant / accused in the commission of offence. He further contended that statement of star witness PW Dost Ali was recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Cr. M.A.No.37 of 2009 dated 09.02.2009, in which he has also not implicated the applicant / accused; case has already been challaned and the applicant / accused is no more required for investigation. Regarding absconsion, it is argued that applicant / accused had no knowledge regarding the registration of FIR and submission of challan against him. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Moosa and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 1612).

3.       Complainant is also present in Court, submits that applicant / accused was not named by him in the FIR and recorded no objection for grant of bail to the applicant / accused in this case.

4.       Learned D.D.P.P. also recorded no objection.

5.       I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant / accused for the reasons that complainant Ghulam Nabi who is present in Court, states that he had not named the applicant / accused in FIR. It appears that statement of star witness Dost Ali was recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Cr. M.A.No.37/2009 but the present applicant / accused was not implicated by Dost Ali in said statement. As regards to abscondence, bail cannot be refused to applicant / accused on mere absconsion. No incriminating piece of evidence/material is brought on record by learned D.D.P.P. for connecting the applicant / accused in the commission of offence, he recorded no objection. Investigation has already been completed. It is also pointed out that yet charge has not been framed against the applicant / accused. Therefore prima facie a case against the applicant / accused requires further inquiry as contemplated u/s 497 (2) Cr.P.C and he is entitled for concession of bail. Accordingly, applicant / accused is granted bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Sixty thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.  

6.       Needless to mention here that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the trial Court while deciding the case on merits shall not be influenced upon by said observations.

                                                                             JUDGE

Tufail