IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No. S- 150/2022.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of bail application.

1. For orders on office objection at Flag ‘A’.

2. For hearing of Bail Application.

O R D E R.

27.05.2022.

Mr. Ashoke Kumar K. Jamba, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Shaikh, Advocate for complainant.

Syed Sardar Ali Shah, Additional Prosecutor General.

-.-.-.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through this order, I intend to dispose of post arrest bail application filed on behalf of applicant/accused Kapil Kumar son of Heera Lal, Hindu in crime No.251/2021, offence u/s 420, 489-F PPC registered at police station ‘A’ Section Sukkur. Prior to this, applicant/accused had filed such application for grant of post arrest bail but the same was turned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur vide order dated 12.03.2022, 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 in this case due to business transaction between the parties. He further submits that on the last date of hearing, in presence of the parties the matter was adjourned on the ground that complainant will produce his all witness before the trial Court with directions to learned trial Court to examine complainant and material witnesses but learned counsel for complainant or complainant failed to produce his witnesses before the trial Court as such no progress has been made. Per learned counsel, there is inordinate delay of five months in lodging of the FIR without any plausible explanation, the alleged offences do not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and the applicant/accused is in Jail since last five months and no progress has been made in the case and further detention of applicant in Jail will not improve the case of prosecution. He further submits that cheques of the applicant/accused has been misplaced as such complainant has used the same. He lastly prayed for grant of post-arrest bail.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for complainant submits that applicant/accused has issued fake cheque to complainant which was dishonoured by the concerned bank on its presentation, as such applicant/accused is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. Learned Additional Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of State raised no objection for grant of bail to applicant/accused by relying upon the case of Abdul Saboor v. The State through A.G Khyder Pakhtunkhwa and another (2022 SCMR 592).

6. I have heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional P.G for the State so also have gone through the material available on record.

7. Since the alleged offences for which applicant/accused has been implicated do not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that grant of bail in the offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception. No exception has been submitted by learned counsel for complainant to dismiss the bail plea of applicant/accused. Further claim of both the parties that there is business transaction between the parties and cheque of applicant/accused was misplaced and complainant has misused the same and registered the case against applicant/accused. It will be determined by the trial Court after recording evidence whether the applicant/accused is guilty of the offence with which he has been implicated as such by taking guideline from the case law cited supra, the case of applicant requires further enquiry.

8. In the view of above, learned counsel for applicant has made out the case for grant of bail in view of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Resultantly the listed bail application is allowed and applicant/accused Kapil Kumar son of Heera Lal, Hindu is granted post arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (five lacs) 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

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