ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-360 of 2014.
|
DATE OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE |
15.01.2016.
1. For orders on office objection.
2. For Hearing.
Mr. Irfan Ali Bhurgri, advocate for the applicants, alongwith the applicants.
Mr. Khadim Hussain Khooharo, Deputy Prosecutor General.
Complainant Rustam Ali Khoso is present in person.
--------------
ABDUL MALIK GADDI, J.- By order dated 20.8.2014 applicants/accused Allah Bux and Mir Gul, both by caste Magsi, were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail in crime No.25/2014 of Police Station Behram, District Kamber-Shahdadkot, registered under Sections 395, 435, 427, PPC, which is fixed today for confirmation or otherwise. Their bail before arrest application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shahdadkot at Kamber vide order dated 18.7.2014.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this bail application are that complainant Rustam Ali lodged FIR against the accused with allegation that he is “Kamdar/Caretaker over the agricultural land owned by Ali Nawaz. It is alleged that on 12.6.2014, at 0030 hours, accused nominated in the FIR came at the said land duly armed with weapons in two tractor-trolleys and by the dint of weapons forcibly loaded wheat “Corn” and “Sarinh” in tractor-trolleys and set the Otaque on fire, in result of which 100 maunds of paddy seed available in the Otaque was completely burnt to ashes.
3. Mr. Irfan Ali Bhurgri, learned Counsel for the applicants, contends that applicants are innocent and they have been implicated falsely in this case due to enmity. He further contends that there is delay of about seven (07) days in lodging the FIR. He also contended that the incident is said to have occurred in the odd hours of night and identification of the accused is claimed to have been made on torchlight, which is very weak type of source and cannot be relied upon. He further contends that charge has already been framed by the trial Court in the case, which is now fixed for evidence of prosecution and the applicants/accused are regularly attending the trial Court.
4. Complainant Rustam Ali is present in person and states that he has no objection if the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants is confirmed and in this regard he has also filed such affidavit.
5. Learned D.P.G has opposed this bail application, on the grounds that the applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific allegation of taking away the wheat grain and setting on fire the paddy seeds lying in the Otaque. He further contends that in this case affidavit of no objection by the complainant to confirmation of pre-arrest bail does not require consideration.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the contentions raised at the bar and have gone through entire material available on record.
7. Admittedly the FIR is delayed by seven (07) days, for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the complainant. The alleged incident is said to have taken place in the odd hours of night and source of identification of culprits has been disclosed as torchlight, therefore, mistaken identity of the applicants/accused and their false implication in this case cannot be ruled out. Per learned Counsel for the applicants/accused, charge has also been framed in this case by the trial Court, which fact is also confirmed by the complainant, who is present in person. In such circumstances, the applicants/accused have been able to make out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail. Under these circumstances, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. The applicants are directed to appear before the trial Court.
8. Since the matter pertains to 2014, therefore, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case and decide the case within a period of two (02) months under intimation to this Court.
JUDGE