ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 30 of 2023.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

02.03.2023.

1.         For orders on office objections.

2.         For hearing of bail application.

            Mr. Ashique Illahi Sundrani, Advocate for the applicants.

            Mr. Abdul Rehman A. Bhutto, Advocate for Ashok Kumar (alleged aggrieved person).

            Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

~~~~~~~

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this application, applicants Muhammad Yousif, Muhammad Nawaz alias Lakhi, Qurban Ali, Bakhat Ali, Abdul Rasool, Abdul Hakeem and Nawaz Ali alias Nimaz Ali have sought for their admission to pre-arrest bail in Crime No.07/2023, registered at Police Station Kashmore (District Kashmore @ Kandhkot), for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 407 P.P.C.  Their similar request was turned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, vide his Order dated 21.01.2023.

            2.         The facts of the case of prosecution are mentioned in the F.I.R (available on record at page 23 along with its english translation), therefore, there is no need to reproduce the same herein again.

            3.         Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that, the applicants have been implicated in this case by complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that F.I.R is delayed for about 27 days without furnishing plausible explanation and that civil litigation is pending adjudication between the parties before the Court of law having jurisdiction. Per learned counsel sections applied in the F.I.R, are punishable for less than ten years, therefore, do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.  Lastly, learned counsel prayed for confirmation of interim pre arrest bail already granted to them.

            4.         Learned counsel appearing for the alleged owner/ aggrieved person as well as learned D.P.G. appearing for the State opposed the grant of bail to applicants/ accused on the grounds that they have been nominated in the F.I.R and that there is violation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and so also violation of orders of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kashmore, as the accused persons have committed the alleged offence in violation of such orders, therefore, they do not deserve any concession.

            5.         Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the material available on record.

            6.         Perusal of the F.I.R reflects that there is delay of about 27 days in lodging of the F.I.R., and explanation so furnished for such inordinate delay does not appear to be satisfactory. Though the complainant being (Tapedar) is government official, even then he remained silent for near about a month and did not report the matter to police, which prima-facie prove some malice on his part. The delay in lodging F.I.R is falling within the ambit of deliberation and afterthought, therefore, it is always considered to be fatal for the prosecution case in cases like present case. Moreover, the sections applied in F.I.R i.e. 379 and 407 P.P.C., carry punishment upto 03 and 07 years respectively, as such, these offences do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section of 497 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the applicants have already joined the trial and attending the trial Court regularly.

            7.         Accordingly, in view of above position, instant application stands allowed. Consequently, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants vide Order dated 26.01.2023, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

                                                       Judge

Ansari