IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Application No.S-269 of 2018
Applicants: (1) Gul Hassan @ Guloo Lashari,
(2) Abdul Razzaq @ Javed Lashari,
Through Mr.Ashfaq Hussain Abro, Advocate
Complainant: Noor Muhammad Khoso, Through
Mr.Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate
State: Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G.
Date of hearing: 23.07.2018
Date of order: 23.07.2018
O R D E R
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits, by committing trespass into house of complainant Noor Muhammad, by causing him butt blows, robbed him of his money and gold ornaments, as are detailed in the FIR, for that the present case was registered.
2. On having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned trial Court, the applicants have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 498 Cr.PC.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant at the instance of police with whom the applicants and their relatives are disputed, there is delay of one day in lodging of the FIR, the complainant and his witnesses are related inter-se. By contending so, he sought for bail for the applicants as according to him, they are apprehending unjustified arrest at the hands of police. In support of his contention he relied upon case of Izhar & another vs.State (2012 YLR-497).
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.G for the State have opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that they are fully involved in commission of the incident. In support of their contention, they relied upon case of Rajo Khan and others vs. the State (2010 PCr.LJ-452), (2). Case of Rashid Ali vs. the State (2013 PCr.LJ-297), and (3). Case of Mst.Sobia Saghir vs. the State (2017 PCr.LJ-819).
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The name of the applicants are appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that they with rest of the culprits by committing trespass in house of complainant Noor Muhammad by causing butt blows robbed him of his money and ornaments, as are detailed in FIR. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. It is true that there is delay of about one day in lodging of the FIR but there could be made no denial to the fact that it is explained in FIR itself. The delay in lodging of the FIR even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court in favour of the applicants at this stage. The complainant and his PWs may be related inter-se, but their relationship is not enough to disbelieve them at this stage, they are appearing to be natural witness to the incident. The applicants may be disputed with the police but the complainant apparently was having no reason to involve the applicants in this case falsely at the instance of police. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are guilty of the offence for which they are charged.
7. The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case there was unexplained delay of 27 days in lodging of the FIR. In the instant case, there is no such delay in lodging of the FIR. It is lodged on the very next date of the incident with plausible explanation.
8. In view of facts and reasons discussed above, it could be concluded safely that the applicants are not found entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, their application for their admission to pre-arrest bail is rejected.
J U D G E