IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Misc. Application No.S-654 of 2023

Applicant: Mst. Shabana Soomro, through Mr. Abdul Qadeer Khoso, Advocate.

Respondents No.1 to 3: Imran Khan and 02 others, In person.

State: Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi Addl.P.G

Date of hearing: 27.11.2023

Date of decision: 27.11.2023

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: This application has been filed against the order dated 12.09.2023 (impugned herein), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Gender Based Violence Court, Sukkur whereby pre-arrest bail of the Respondent No.1 to 3 was confirmed by common order on their applications.

2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, at the very outset, contended that learned trial Court has not appreciated the material available on record; that incriminating material was available against the accused, which connected the Respondents with the commission of offence; that there is admitted enmity in between the parties; that there is motive for committing the offence. He submitted that bail granting order reflects that it was passed in hasty manners. Respondents were not entitled for the confirmation of bail and their bail granting order may be set-aside and they may be taken into custody. The Respondents are present in person and submitted that they were involved by the complainant with malafide intentions and they have not committed any offence whatsoever alleged against them and prayed that application may be dismissed.

3. Learned Additional Prosecutor General has opposed the application on the ground the trial court by sound reasons confirmed the bail of the respondents and the order impugned is in accordance with law therefore, he prayed that the application may be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record with their able assistance.

5. Record reflects that learned trial Court while granting bail to the Respondents/accused has elaborately mentioned the reasons in penultimate paragraph of the impugned order, which is reproduced as under:-

“From its perusal, it appears that there is delay of one month and seven days in registration of FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. The perusal of record shows that there is dispute between the parties over registration of FIR by complainant against Adeel Mustafa Lodhi and others as admitted by the complainant in her FIR. Moreover, according to contents of FIR on 25.06.2023 at 2.30 pm the applicants/accused alongwith co-accused Adeel Mustafa and Shahrukh Khan armed with weapons abducted away son of complainant Rehman from near Pakola chowk, robbed motorcycle, five gold bangles weighing 10 Tola and cash Rs.30,000/- who was subsequently recovered on 25.07.2023 from Waritar Road in unconscious condition on an application U/S 491 Cr.P.C filed by her but from perusal of police papers it appears that on the alleged date of incident the applicants/accused Imran and Shahid Umar were present at Waritar Road and applicant/accused Ghulam Jaffar was present at Khudad Road as per CDR collected by I.O. and even the name of applicant/accused Imran has been shown by I.O. in column No.2 of challan. The perusal of Police papers shows that the victim has not been examined by MLO regarding commission of sodomy with him and no such Medical report is available in police papers. The perusal of record also shows that the complainant filed an application U/O 491 Cr.P.C for recovery of victim from the applicants/accused but he was not recovered by the police but the complainant herself produced the victim in court as per order dated 01.08.2023 passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sukkur, therefore it also appears that the victim was also not recovered from the possession of applicants/accused, therefore in such circumstances case of the applicants/accused at this stage requires further enquiry. Even otherwise the applicants/accused have joined the investigation, therefore they have not misused the concession of interim bail granted to them. The case law quoted by learned Advocate for complainant is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

6. It is a settled proposition of law that the grounds for grant of bail are totally different from the grounds for cancellation of bail already granted to an accused. The only point required to be considered in the instant cancellation application is that the bail concession is misused or there is apprehension of tampering of evidence by the accused, which both are missing. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defects in the bail granting order, therefore, I do not find any good ground or any justification to cancel the bail already granted to the accused/respondents by the Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the application in hand is hereby dismissed.

JUDGE

Ihsan/*