IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-324 of 2018

Applicant               :                Irshad Ali s/o Muhammad Saffar Hulio

Through Mr.Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Advocate

Respondent         :                  The State Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi                                                 A.P.G.

Date of hearing   :                  06.07.2018          

Date of order      :                  06.07.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH. J- It is alleged that the applicant being Taluka Officer Finance, TMA, Dokri, in collusion with other officers misappropriated an amount of Rs.85,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively against bogus bills and vouchers in different Heads of account of TMA, Dokri, for that he was booked and challaned in the present case.

2.                On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned trial Court, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr.PC.

3.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police without any enquiry from him, the FIR has been lodged with delay of about six years, the offence is not falling within prohibitory, the entire payment was made through cross cheques, the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged misappropriation of the funds, he is lying in jail since four months without any trial, as the prosecution has not yet been able to furnish final challan of the case. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on point of further enquiry. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Zahid Maseeh and another vs. the State(2012 MLD-14), (2).Case of Ghulam Nabi vs. the State(2003 P Cr.L.J-447), (3). Case of Saeed Ahmed vs. the State(1995 SCMR-170) and (4) Case of Saeed Ahmed vs. the State(1996 SCMR-1132).

4.                Learned A.P.G has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that the offence which he allegedly has committed is affecting the society at large.

5.                I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6.                The FIR of the incident has been lodged with unexplained delay of six years, which could not be lost sight of. In interim challan the applicant has been shown to only accused of the incident, which appears to be significant, the entire documentary evidence is lying with the prosecution, the offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC, the applicant is lying in jail since four months and final challan against him is yet to be submitted by the prosecution. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he is entitled to be released on bail on point of further enquiry.

7.                In view of above, while relying upon the case law which is referred by the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

8.                The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                            J U D G E

-