IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-679 of 2018

Applicant               :                         Ghulam Rasool son of Ahmed Channa

Through Mr. Noushad Ali Taggar,       Advocate

State                          :                       Through Mr.Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G.

Date of hearing      :                       04.01.2019             

Date of order          :                       04.01.2019                         

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is case of the prosecution that (33-36) Acres of land consisting of Survey No.57, 59, 60, 140 and 836, situated in Deh Karira, Tapo Karira, Taluka Bakrani, owned by Central Government was transferred in name of Houndal Khan Noohani and then was sold by him to Noor Muhammad Unar fraudulently and record of rights was mutated accordingly. On coming to know of such fraud, Assistant Commissioner-I, Larkana, cancelled such mutation entries in record of rights in year 2000, and subsequently the said land was reverted to ownership of Central Government. In year 2006, Tapedar Balchand Oad in collusion with          co-accused Gul Munir Unar issued a false/fake sale certificate for the sale of said land and the said land was sold to the applicant under registered deed. By doing such act, the applicant and others caused huge loss to public money, for that the present case was registered against them.  

2.                    On arrest, the applicant sought for his release on bail, it was declined by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Larkana vide order dated 05.12.2018, and he now has sought for his release on bail from this Court by way of filing instant application u/s 497 Cr.PC.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 (2) Cr.PC, the FIR has been lodged with delay of about nine years without any plausible explanation, the applicant is bonafide purchase of the land under dispute and co-accused Tapedar Balchand after release on bail has already been acquitted by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 22.03.2017. By contending so, he sought for release of applicant on bail on point of consistency and further enquiry.

4.                    Learned D.P.G for the State has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he is beneficiary of fraud and has remained in absconsion for considerable time.

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

6.                    The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about nine years, which has not been explained plausibly. The offence is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 (2) Cr.PC. Co-accused Tapedar Balchand who allegedly has committed the alleged forgery and fraud after release on bail has already been acquitted by learned trial Court. In that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on point of consistency and further enquiry, such concession could not be denied to him on point of absconsion and under pretext that he is beneficiary of the alleged fraud and forgery.

7.                    In case of Mitho Pitafi Vs. The State (2009 SCMR-299), it has been observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that;

“----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Bail, grant of---Co-accused was released on bail by the Trial Court, but the concession of bail was declined to the accused petitioner on the ground that he was fugitive from law---High Court as well as the Trial Court had rejected the bail of petitioner on account of his absconsion and not on merits---Validity---Bail could be granted, if accused had good case for bail on merits and mere his absconsion would not come in the way while granting him bail---High Court had not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective while declining bail to the petitioner---Petition was converted into appeal and same was allowed---Impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail, in circumstances”.

8.                    In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

9.                    The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE