IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

(1) Cr. Bail Appln. No.S-240   of  2023

Qurban Khuharo

Vs

The State

------------

(2) Cr. Bail Appln. No.S-251   of  2023

Saddar Khuharo @ Karo Khuharo & another

Vs

The State

Applicants          :   Through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate.

State                 :   Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional

                              Prosecutor General.  

Date of hearing      :  13.07.2023.

Date of Decision    :  13.07.2023.

O R D E R.

                        These two bail applications have been filed in Crime No.21/2023 registered at Police Station Thariri Muhabat, under Sections 395, 342, PPC, as such, the same are being disposed of by this common order.  Applicants Qurban Khooharo seeks post arrest bail, whereas applicants Saddar and Wahid Bux, both by caste Khooharo, seek pre-arrest bail.

            2.         The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and crime report, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with the bail application, hence needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

            3.         Per learned Counsel, the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant party; that there is delay of one day in lodging of FIR without plausible explanation; that the incident is of night time and no source of light was available at the place of incident. He further contended that due to tracking dogs the applicants have been implicated in this case; that no specific role has been attributed to the applicants; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the applicants/accused; that the challan has been submitted, as such, the applicants are no more required for further investigation.  Lastly, he prayed for confirmation of pre-arrest bail of applicants Sadar and Wahid Bux and grant of post arrest to applicant Qurban.

            4.         On the other hand, learned Addl. P.G. has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicants.

            5.         Heard learned Counsel and perused the record.

            6.         Admittedly, the names of applicants appear in the FIR with specific role that on the day of incident the applicants/accused along with four unidentified accused duly armed with pistols and KKs emerged at the road and committed robbery of cash amount, mobile phones and other valuable articles from the complainant party.

            7.         So far the contention of learned Counsel that no specific role has been assigned against the applicants, the Section 391, PPC provides that when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, all the accused persons are liable for the same offence. Furthermore, so far the delay in FIR is concerned, the complainant has also explained the same. Now-a-days such type of incidents are increasing and applicants by show of arms and ammunitions have committed the offence, which is against the society. No enmity is alleged against the complainant party to falsely implicate the applicants/ accused Learned Counsel for the applicants has failed to make out a case for grant of bail to the applicants. Resultantly, both the bail applications are dismissed.

                                                                                                JUDGE

Qazi Tahir PA/*