ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI.

Criminal Bail Application No. 1182 of 2016

Date               Order with Signature of Judge                                       .                                             

 

For hearing of bail application.

---------------

26.01.2017.

           

Mr. Abdul Karim Junejo, Advocate alongwith applicant.

            Mr. Abdul Majeed Khoso, Advocate alongwith complainant.           

            Mr. Abdullah Rajput, APG.          

---------------

 

             Having rejected his first application for grant of pre-arrest bail bearing Bail Application No. 1191/2016, vide order dated 01.08.2016, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, the applicant/accused Javed Shaikh s/o. Haji Punhal Shaikh, through instant Criminal Bail Application has sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 39/2016, registered at P.S Bahadurabad, Karachi, under Section 392/34 P.P.C.   He was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 01.09.2016, now he sees confirmation of his bail.

 

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the aforementioned FIR lodged on 19.03.2016 at 1800 hours by the complainant Sajjad Ali Solangi s/o. Qurban Ali Solangi are that, he is a movie maker and on 5/6.03.2016 at midnight after making movie of the sister of Manthar Shaikh at about 4:00/5:00 a.m. he proceeded alongwith his friend, namely, Rashid towards his house, when all of sudden four boys on two motorcycles came and started beating him. They snatched from him two bags containing two video cameras, stand and Rs.9,000/-. Then he tried to find out them, on 11.03.2016 when after performing Jumma prayers he was coming, he saw     (1) Javed s/o. Punhal, (2) Munawar Hussain s/o. Muharram Ali Chandio and (3) Muhammad Yaseen s/o. Rawat Khan Shar, whose names he came to know later on, he caught hold of them on that area people gathered there and they decided that the above named accused will return the articles to him on or before 18.03.2016 but when he made contact with them they refused him; hence, he lodged the F.I.R. against them by producing before the police the bag snatched from him and recovered from the above named accused persons by him. 

 

3.         The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity, malice and ulterior motive, as the present applicant is the close relative  of Manthar and since the complainant had misbehaved with the girls who were participating in the marriage ceremony of Manthar’s sister, the applicant expelled him out after exchange of hot words and thereafter the instant false F.I.R. has been lodged; that the guilt of the applicant requires probe; therefore, he is entitled for the concession of bail. 

 

4.         On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application vehemently on the ground that applicant is involved in a heinous offence, he was identified by the complainant alongwith two other co-accused, who admitted their guilt before the complainant and undertook to return the robbed articles and cash amount to complainant by the 18.03.2016 and when they failed to do so the complainant lodged the F.I.R. against them; hence, the applicant is not entitled for the concession of bail. 

 

5.         The learned APG while adopting the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed this application. 

 

6.         I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

 

7.         The instant F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant with delay of 13 days and no plausible explanation in this regard has been furnished by him. No description of the accused persons has been given in the F.I.R. It is also not mentioned in the F.I.R. as to how the complainant came to know about presence of accused persons near Ayub village and about their names. The names of the area people who according to complainant gathered at the spot and settled the dispute between the accused persons and complainant, are not mentioned in the F.I.R. No explanation is available with prosecution   as to how and when the complainant recovered the robbed bag, which was later on produced by him before the police at the time of registration of the F.I.R. There appear, in tentative assessment of evidence, serious doubts in the case of the prosecution, which squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Hence, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 01.09.2016 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. 

 

8.         Needless to say that the observations made by this Court are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on merits and in case the applicant misuses the concession of bail the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the same after giving notice to the applicant, in accordance with law.

 

JUDGE

Athar Zai