ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-110 of 2020

Crl.B.A.No.S-127 of 2020

DATE                    ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail applications.

04.05.2020.

M/S. Ghulam Shabir Dayo and Muzafar Ali Wadho, Advocates for the applicants.

                        Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State.

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

Irshad Ali Shah-J; It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicants with rest of the culprits in collusion with each other, prepared a false pension case of Saifullah, pretending him to be Drawing Teacher in Education Department, Jacobabad, then withdrawn such pensionary benefits, thereby caused considerable loss to the Public Ex-chequer and undue gain to them, for that the present case was registered.

2.       The applicants on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Larkana, have sought for the same from this Court by way of captioned applications u/s 497 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 police; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about two years; the case has been challaned finally; the applicants are in custody for more than six months and section 409 PPC is not applicable to their case, therefore, they are entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon case of Saeed Ahmed Vs. The State (1996 SCMR-1132).

4.       Learned D.P.G. for the State has opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have caused considerable loss to public money by forging a fake pension case. 

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

6.       The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about two years; such delay in lodgment of the FIR could not be overlooked; the case is mainly based on documentary evidence, which has already been collected by the police; the investigation of the case is over and the applicants are said to be in custody for more than six months without effective trial. In these circumstances, the applicants are found entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry.

7.       In view of above, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

8.       The captioned bail applications are disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                        J U D G E