ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-355 of 2021

Cr. Bail Application No.S-368 of 2021

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Applicant: Mohan Lal and Aadesh Kumar

through Mr. Qurban Ali Malano,

Advocate

Complainant: Ashraf Ali Mirani, Advocate

State: Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah, APG

Date of hearing: 10.09.2021

Dated of order: 10.09.2021

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Applicants/accused Mohan Lal and Aadesh Kumar, seek pre-arrest bail in FIR No.23/2021, registered at Police Station Jhangro, u/s 420, 406, 120-B, 342, 380, 34 PPC, Their earlier pre-arrest bail plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood), Sukkur, vide order dated 07.06.2021. After rejection of their bail application, they approached this court for the same relief.

2. The allegation leveled as per FIR registered on 04.06.2021 against the present applicants/accused by the Complainant are that the present applicants/accused, on 19.10.2020, allegedly stolen away about 55000 mounds of wheat stock from Muslim Floor Mills Ali Wahan, Rohri with the help of 30/35 other laborers, by locking the Godown Keeper in a room of said flour mill forcibly and on information Regional CAD Manager Sukkur reached at the spot, who checked the stock of wheat and found stolen wheat as 64850 mounds, hence this FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants are innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention. He next contended that there is un-explained delay of about 08 months in lodging of the FIR which has not been properly explained. He next contended that Complainant is servant of a private company and was not competent to register the FIR, therefore, he prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant may be confirmed.

4. Learned Counsel for the Complainant and learned Additional Prosecutor General opposed the confirmation of bail plea on the ground that the applicants caused heavy loss to the exchequer and are not entitled for the relief claimed through instant bail application.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their able assistance.

6. Record reflects that the alleged offence was occurred on 19.10.2020; however FIR was registered on 04.06.2021 after a delay of about 08 months and in this regard no plausible reason or explanation has been furnished by the prosecution, which prima facie shows the malafide of the complainant in registration of present FIR. No evidence in respect of the ownership of the wheat has been produced and as per the contention of the applicants they are the co-owners of the mill where such wheat was stocked, all these grounds require further inquiry.

7. The concept of pre-arrest bail is to save the innocent persons from unnecessary arrest and humiliation. The conduct of Complainant party in the present case also suggests some malice against the applicants. However, if the prosecution has some evidence against the applicants then such may be produced before the trial Court at the time of recording evidence.

8. It is settled principle of law that bail applications are to be decided tentatively and deeper appreciation is not permissible from the tentative assessment of the material available on record, the applicants make out their case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants / accused by this court vide orders dated 07.06.2021 & 15.06.2021, are hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

8. Observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial.

9. Instant Criminal Bail Applications are disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

Faisal Mumtaz/PS