IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application No. S- 161/2022.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
1. For orders on office objection at Flag ‘A’.
2. For hearing of bail application.
O R D E R.
25.04.2022.
Mr. Mumtaz Ali Jehangir
Lashari, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar,
Additional P.G.
AMJAD ALI
SAHITO J., Through this order, I intend to dispose of post arrest bail application
filed on behalf of applicant/accused Muhammad Yousif Lashari in crime No.28/2022,
offence u/s 324, 334, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-A(ii), 114, 147,148, 149 PPC registered
at police station Mirwah, District Khairpur Mir’s. Prior to this, both
applicant/accused had filed such application for grant of post arrest bail but the
same was turned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Khairpur vide order
dated 05.04.2022, hence he has filed instant bail application.
2. The
details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail
application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with
such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Learned counsel for applicant
submits that on intervention of nekmards of locality the parties have patched
up the matter outside of this Court. Today injured Muhammad Ali who is father
of complainant/injured Farhan Ali appeared and filed such affidavit and has
recorded his no objection for grant of bail to applicant/accused.
4. Learned Additional P.G for
State has conceded to the grant of bail to applicant/accused on the basis of
affidavit filed by injured/father of complainant.
5. I have heard learned counsel
for applicant, injured/victim Muhammad Ali Jogi having (CNIC No. 45203-6666601-9)
who is present in Court and submits that they have compromised the matter with
the accused/applicant Muhammad Yousif outside of the Court and they will file
such compromise application before the trial Court as such he admits the
contents of affidavit and raised his no objection for grant of bail to applicant/accused
Muhammad Yousif Lashari. In the circumstances, applicant/accused Muhammad
Yousif is granted post arrest bail subject to furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) and PR bond in the
like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Learned trial Court is
at liberty to take action against the applicant/accused, if he misuses the
concession of bail.
6. The aforesaid bail application stand
disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Irfan/P.A
AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through this order, I intend to dispose of post arrest
bail application filed on behalf of applicant/accused Sagheer Ahmed son of
Muhammad Usman bycaste Solangi in crime No.78/2021, offence u/s 458, 364,
120-B, 448, 34 PPC registered at police station Abad District Sukkur. Prior to
this, the applicant/accused Sagheer Ahmed had filed such application for grant
of post arrest bail but the same was turned down by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II/Gender Based Violence Court, Sukkur vide order dated 27.01.2022, hence
he has filed instant bail application.
2. The details and
particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR,
same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application,
hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that
applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated by complainant in his
further statement which was recorded with the delay of eight months and there
is no provision in the law for recording further statement of the complainant.
He further contended that only on the basis of CDR, the applicant/accused was
found to remain in contact with the alleged abductee and as such the applicant/accused
was implicated in this case otherwise he is innocent and lastly prayed for
grant of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for
complainant as well as learned Additional P.G vehemently opposed for grant of
bail to the applicant/accused and stated that on the basis of further statement
of complainant, applicant/accused has been implicated in this case as during
investigation the CDR was collected by the police as such he is not entitled
for concession of post arrest bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for
applicant, learned counsel for complainant as well as learned Additional P.G
for the State so also have gone through the material available on record.
6. Admittedly the name of present
applicant/accused does not transpire in the FIR but subsequently further
statement of complainant was recorded with the delay of about eight months and
on the basis of CDR collected by the police, the present applicant/accused has
been implicated in this case otherwise no evidence has been brought on record.
No source has been disclosed by the complainant that who has informed the
complainant that the applicant/accused is involved in this case. Mere the
allegation against the applicant/accused that he was in contact with the
alleged abductee without any material / substance does not mean that he is
involved in the commission of offence. Applicant/accused is in Jail, he is no
more required for further investigation.
7. In view of above
discussion, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out a good case
for grant of bail in the light of sub section
(2) of Section 497 CrPC, hence the applicant/accused namely Sagheer Ahmed son
of Muhammad Usman Solangi is granted post arrest bail subject to furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (One lac) and PR bond in the like
amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Learned trial Court is at
liberty to take action against the applicant/accused, if he misuses the
concession of bail.
8. Needless
to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and
would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the
applicant on merits.
9. The
aforesaid bail application stand disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Irfan/P.A