ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S-  552 of 2022.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

03.03.2023.

1.         For orders on office objections.

2.         For hearing of bail application.

            Mr. Ahsan Ahmad Quraishi, Advocate for applicant.

            Mr. Javed Ahmed, Advocate for complainant.

            Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

~~~~~~~

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this application, applicant  Basit Ali Magsi has sought for his admission to post-arrest bail in Crime No.46/2022 registered at Police Station Sachal (Larkana), for offences punishable under Sections 395, 457, 506 (2) and 342  P.P.C.  His similar request was turned down by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, vide his Order dated  02.11.2022

            The facts of case of prosecution are mentioned in F.I.R (copy of which along with its English translation) is available on record; as such there is no need to reproduce the facts herein again.

            Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that, the applicant is innocent and he has been implicated in this case by complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that F.I.R is delayed for about two days, which has not been explained by the complainant; that the complainant and accused are closely related to each other; that Section 395 P.P.C provides alternate punishments, which is four years and at bail stage lesser sentence is to be considered; that recovery as allegedly shown against applicant is foisted on him and that nekmard with whom complainant has consulted has not been examined during investigation, therefore, the case of applicant is falling within the ambit of further enquiry entitling him for concession of bail. Learned counsel relied upon the cases reported as 2009 Y.L.R 1975 and 2006 Y.L.R 3167.

            Conversely, learned D.P.G. and learned Advocate for complainant opposed grant of bail on the grounds that applicant is nominated in F.I.R with specific role and applicant remained sufficient time in the house and being related he is already known to complainant party, therefore, question of mistaken of identity does not arise; that there is recovery of robbed mobile phone from possession of applicant, as such he is not entitled for grant of bail.

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

            Generally in the offences of like nature the police is avoiding to register the F.I.R, therefore, a short delay in lodging F.I.R is not to be considered as fatal to prosecution case and the stage of bail. From contents of F.I.R it reflects that specific allegation is attributed agaisnt present applicant and now a days the crime for which the applicant is involved is increasing day by day, which need some deterrence. At the time of arrest of the applicant/ accused a robbed mobile has been recovered from him, therefore, I feel that there is sufficient material collected during investigation against applicant which connects him with the commission of alleged offence, which falls within prohibition as contained in Section 497 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this bail application is hereby dismissed.

                                                       Judge

Ansari