ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No. S-453 of 2022

(Dhani Bux @ Ali Raza Vs. The State)

Cr. Bail Application No.S-475 of 2022

(Waheed Chandio Vs. The State)

For hearing of Post Arrest Bail Application.

17-02-2023.

M/s Ghulam Rasool Chandio and Syed Jaffer Ali Shah, Advocate for applicants.

Mr. Mujahid Hussain Phulpoto, advocate for complainant.

Mr. Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi, Additional P.G for the State.

>>>>>…<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of Rab Dino, misappropriated his belongings and then caused disappearance of evidence by throwing his dead body in water pond, in order to save themselves from legal consequences, for that the present case was registered.

2. On having been refused bail by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Khairpur, the applicants have sought for the same from this Court by filing two separate Bail Applications u/s 497 Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by complainant Altaf Hussain in order to satisfy his grudge with them; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about one month, yet it does not contain names and descriptions of the applicants. By contending so, they sought for release of the applicants on bail on point of further enquiry. In support of their contention, they relied upon the case of Noor Muhammad Vs. The State (2008 SCMR 1556).

4. Learned APG for the State has recorded no objection to release of the applicants on bail, however learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to release of applicants on bail by contenting that on arrest from them have been secured the belongings of the deceased.

5. Heard arguments and perused the record.

6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one month; yet it does not contain the names and descriptions of the applicants, those were disclosed by the complainant subsequently by way of further statement, it was recorded with delay of about two months even to FIR; the further statement, if any, could hardly be made as a part of FIR. Be that as it may, none has seen the applicants committing the actual death of the deceased; the case has finally been challaned and there is no apprehension of tempering with the evidence on the part of the applicants. In these circumstance; a case for release of the applicants on bail, on point of further inquiry obviously is made out, which could not be withheld only for the reason that on arrest from them have been secured the belongings of the deceased, which are alleged to have been foisted upon them by the police at the instance of the complainant.

7. In view of above the applicants are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two lac) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

8. The instant Crl. Bail Applications are disposed of accordingly.

Judge

Nasim/P.A