ORDER-SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 416 of 2023.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
31.07.2023.
1. For orders on M.A. No. 3354/2023.
2. For orders on office objections.
3. For orders on M.A. No. 3355/2023.
4. For hearing of bail application.
Mr. Faheem Akhtiar, Advocate for applicant.
~~~~~~~
Amjad Ali Sahito, J- Through instant bail application, applicant Muhammad Ramzan Brohi has sought for pre arrest bail in case registered vide Crime No.56/2023 with P.S Warah (District Kamber-Shahdadkot), for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 P.P.C. His similar plea was declined by learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shahdadkot @ Kamber, vide Order dated 24.07.2023.
In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 19.06.2023 Sub Inspector Sikander Ali Sohu lodged F.I.R on behalf of the State, to the effect that on fateful day he along with his subordinate staff was on patrolling, during which he received information through spy that, some persons through device are deducting certain amount of widow and poor ladies from the amount of granted to them under Benazir Income Support Program in Government Boys High School Warrah, as such the police party reached the pointed place, where they noticed that accused Muhammad Hussain Brohi and 2. Muhammad Ramzan Brohi (present applicant) are deducting an amount of rupees 1000 through device from the amount of ladies. The police party tried to apprehend these persons, but accused Muhammad Ramzan Brohi succeeded in escaping away along with device and bag of money, while police apprehended second person, who on enquiry disclosed his name to be Muhammad Hussain and on his personal search two notes of Rs.1000/- and two notes of Rs.200/- were secured. Such mashirnama was prepared on the spot and captive was brought at police station, where complainant lodged F.I.R to the effect that the above named accused persons have committed mischief and fraud with poor women by deducting Rs.1000/- from Rs.25000 granted to them by BISP.
Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that applicant is innocent, but he has been implicated in the case by complainant SIP Sikander Ali Sohu, who used to take easy-load from the shop of applicant on credit basis and when applicant demanded his amount, he has been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further contended that, neither applicant is alleged to have been arrested on the spot, nor there is any recovery of device etc. from him to prove the allegation. He further added that, sections applied in F.I.R except section 406 P.P.C are bail-able and Section 406 P.P.C does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
Perusal of the F.I.R reflects that, that a police party pursuant to spy information reached the scheme of offence, where they found the present applicant along with co-accused looting the poor women by deducting an amount of rupees 1000 through device from the amount of poor ladies, which was granted to them by BISP; however applicant succeeded in escaping away along with device and deducted amount, while his co-accused was apprehended on the spot by the police party. The applicant has not alleged any malafide intention and ulterior motives to falsely implicate him in the case, except his word that complainant/ SIP Sikander Ali was obtained easy-load from him on credit basis and on demand of his money, the complainant implicated him in this case, but in this regard he has not placed any proof or evidence on record to substantiate his contention. So far as, contention of learned counsel that applicant was not arrested on the spot, nor there is any recovery of device etc. from him; suffice it to say that, it is case of prosecution itself that applicant/ accused succeed in escaping away along with device and deducted money, as such if he is admitted to pre arrest bail, the entire investigation will be hampered and recovery of incriminating articles could not be effected. As for as, other contention of learned counsel that the sections applied in F.I.R, do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, the applicant is entitled to pre arrest bail; again suffice to say that, off-course Sections applied in the F.I.R do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., but on this score only, the accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right. Furthermore, the main ingredient for grant of extra ordinary concession of pre arrest bail is missing in the instant case, as no malafides against complainant or prosecution are proved for false implication of applicant.
All the above factors prima-facie connects the applicant with commission of alleged offence, disentitling him to grant of extra ordinary concession of pre arrest bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application being merit less stands dismissed.
Judge
Ansari