ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Appln. No.S- 659 of 2018

For hearing of bail application

1. For orders on office objection at flag ‘A’

2. For hearing of main case

11.02.2019

Mr. Qurban Ali Kalwar Advocate for the Applicant

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro Advocate for the complainant

Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits by committing trespass into house of PW Sher Muhammad Phulpoto robbed him of his belonging by causing him butt blows and then went away after tethering him and others for that the present case was registered.

2. On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge Khairpur, the applicants have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 497 Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party, there is delay of twenty one days in lodgment of the FIR, the identity of the applicants at the night time is a weak piece of evidence, no injury to the PW Sher Muhammad is attributed to any of the applicants specifically; the recovery of clothes and purse being available in market has been foisted upon the applicants by police. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicants on bail, as according to him their case is calling for further enquiry. In support of his contentions, he relied upon case of Tarique Bashir & ors v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and ors (PLD 2017 SC 733).

4. Learned DPG for the State has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicants while learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in commission of incident and offence which they have committed is affecting the society at large.

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

6. There is delay of twenty one days in lodgment of the FIR; such delay being unplausible could not be lost sight of. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the applicants were identified by the complainant party at the time of incident then there was hardly a need for complainant party to have tracked the footprints marks of the culprits later on, which appears to be significant. No injury to PW Sher Muhammad is attributed to any of the applicants specifically. Nothing has been brought on record which may prove the ownership of the complainant party over the articles allegedly robbed by the applicants and others. Co-accused Ghulam Shabbir and Zaheer have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court. Learned DPG has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicants. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are entitled to grant of bail on point of further enquiry.

7. In view of above, while relying upon the case law referred by learned counsel for the applicants, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing surety in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

8. Instant Cr. Bail Application is disposed of in above terms.

Judge

ARBROHI