IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,LARKANA

1^st Criminal Bail Application No.S- 143 of 2021

Applicant(s):                                      Badlo @ Ail Bux and 02 others

Through Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate.

The State:                                          Through Mr. Muhammad Noonari,

Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing:                               07-05-2021

Date of Order:                                   07-05-2021

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.-Through this application, applicants Badlo @ Ali Bux, Bhagiyo and Dolat @ Doli, seek their pre-arrest bail in case, emanating from F.I.R. No.04/2021, registered at Police Station Karan Sharif, for offence under Sections 392 P.P.C. Earlier their bail plea was declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, vide order dated 30.03.2021.

 2.        Brief facts of the case are that on 28.2.2021 complainant Sobho Jafri, witnesses Hussain Bux and Abdul Sattar were taking away five maunds of paddy on donkey cart when at 1400 hours near village Sher Dil Jatoi, accused Bhagio, Doulat @ Doli with pistols, Badlo alias Ali Bux and Nazir with lathis intercepted them, robbed donkey cart loaded with paddy and cash of Rs.1000/- from P.W Abdul Sattar and went away.  Complainant then lodged instant FIR on 1.3.2021 at 1500 hours.

3.          Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, applicants/accused are falsely involved with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that there is one day delay in lodging FIR, and same has not been explained; that complainant and witnesses are relatives and interested and no independent witness has been cited to witness the incident; that the offence for which the applicants are charged, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, grant of bail in cases covered under the said provision is rule and refusal is an exception. Lastly, he prayed that interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants may be confirmed.

4.                     On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General submitted that applicants are nominated in the F.I.R with specific role and there is no ground for complainant to involve the applicants falsely as such he opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.

5.                     I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record and the police file with their able assistance.

6.                     Admittedly, the delay in registration of FIR has not been explained properly by the complainant; the offence for which the applicants are charged is punishable up-to 10 years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The grant of bail in cases covered under the said provision is rule and refusal is an exception. Reliance is placed in cases of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and Muhammad Tanveer V. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 733).

7.                     Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of bail and the same is to be decided tentatively. From the tentative assessment of material available on record, the applicants have made out their case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, instant bail application is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants vide order dated 7.04.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

8.                     The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

J U D G E

S.Ashfaq..