ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr.B.A.No.S-212 of 2020

&

Cr.B.A.No.S-177 of 2020

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

 

For hearing of bail applications.

18.05.2020.

 

 

Mr. Safdar Ali Bhutto, Advocate for the applicants.

                   Complainant Nisar Ahmed Bhutto in person.

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G for the State.

                                                 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

 

Irshad Ali Shah J;- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, committed death of Afsar Ali  a boy aged 07 years, said to be son of complainant     Nisar Ahmed, by causing him electric shocks, for that the present case was registered.

2.       The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant applications u/s 498 Cr.PC.

3.       It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant in order to satisfy his land dispute with them; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 28 days without any plausible explanation. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicants on point of malafide. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Nooruddin and another Vs. The State (2005 MLD-1267).

4.       Learned D.P.G. for the State who is assisted by the complainant has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that they are fully involved in commission of the incident.

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

6.       Initially, the incident was recorded in roznamcha(Entry No.08/02.02.2020). It does not contain name of any culprit, which appears to be surprising. Subsequently, the complainant lodged FIR of the incident disclosing the names of culprits, which appears to be significant. It was lodged with delay of about 28 days, which has not been explained plausibly. As per FIR, the elders were consulted by the complainant before reporting the incident to police formally. Such consultation on the part of the complainant could not be lost sight of. The parties admittedly are disputed over the landed property. In that situation, the involvement of the applicants by the complainant falsely to settle his land dispute with them could not be overlooked. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of malafide.

                   In case of Nooruddin and another Vs. The State          (2005 MLD-1267), wherein it is observed by this Court that;

----S.497---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss.17(2)/17(3)/17(4)---Bail, grant of---Complainant, after the occurrence went to the police station along with both the injured persons, informed the police about the incident, requested for a letter for taking the injured persons to the Hospital and stated that he would come later on and lodge the report---Such entry was made in the station diary---Police, therefore, started the investigation by issuing letter to the Medical Officer for examination of the injured witnesses---F.I.R. in the case, thus, would be the said station diary under which the complainant had narrated some details of the incident to the police---Names of the accused were not mentioned in the station diary---Complainant after getting the injured persons admitted in hospital should have gone to the police station for giving full details of the incident which could have been termed as his further statement, but he did not do so and kept silent for two days and he then went to the police station again and gave the details of the incident which were incorporated in S.154, Cr.P.C. book---Delay of these two days was not explained by the complainant---Police also did not explain the delay in recording the statements of the said two injured witnesses which had adversely affected the prosecution story---Plea of alibi taken by the accused of being admitted in the Hospital at the time of occurrence could be considered at the time of trial, but if the same was presently considered in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, involvement of accused in the case would become doubtful---Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances”.

7.       In view of above, the instant bail applications are allowed. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

8.       Needless to state that the observations made above are tentative in nature, which may not affect the case of either of the party at trial.       

                                                                                              J U D G E