ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-109 of 2020

Crl.B.A.No.S-125 of 2020

Crl.B.A.No.S-139 of 2020

Crl.B.A.No.S-145 of 2020

Crl.B.A.No.S-161 of 2020

Crl.B.A.No.S-167 of 2020

Crl.B.A.No.S-171 of 2020

DATE                          ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail applications.

20.04.2020.

M/S. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Habibullah Ghouri, Muhammad Ismail Chandio, Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Safdar Ali Ghouri, Muzafar Ali Wadho and Ghulam Shabir Dayo, Advocates for the applicants.

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 collusion with each other, prepared a family pension case for Mst.Hajran, on the basis of false and forged documents, purported her to be widow of Ghulam Sarwar forging him to be a Primary School Teacher who infact had never remained in public service, thereby caused considerable loss to the public money and undue favour 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 one year; the case has been challaned finally; the applicants are in custody for about six months, therefore, they are entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry.     In supports 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 committed the offence which is affecting the society at large.  

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

6.       The FIR has been lodged with considerable delay; such delay having not been explained plausibly 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 about six months without effective trial. In these circumstances, the case of the applicants obviously is calling for further inquiry.

7.       In view of above, the applicants are ordered to be released on 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