THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

Criminal Bail Application No.S-62 of 2023

 

Applicant:            Abid alias Badaruddin son of Noor Ahmed Jagirani through Mr. Ahmed Bux Abro, Advocate.

 

Complainant:      None present for the complainant.

 

Respondent:        The State

Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

 

Date of hearing:  24.07.2023

Date of Order:     24.07.2023

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 260/2022, offence under Sections 395, 427, 148, 149 PPC of the Police Station Kamber City. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber vide Order dated 22.11.2022; hence he filed instant Criminal Bail Application.

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

3.                Per learned counsel, the applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that co-accused Abdul Ghaffar has been granted bail by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber on the ground that the complainant has not implicated him; as such present applicant is also entitled for the same relief; that the complainant has also filed affidavit, raising no objection to the grant of the bail to the applicant/accused. He further contended that the F.I.R. is delayed for about 18 hours and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that the incident has taken place in the odd hours of the night and the accused was identified on the light of the car; that the challan has been submitted and the applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation.  Lastly, learned counsel prayed for confirmation of bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused.

4.                On the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor General vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused on the ground that the applicant/accused has been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of robbery.

5.                Heard and perused. Admittedly, name of the applicant/accused has been appeared in the F.I.R. with specific role that on the night of the incident, applicant alongwith co-accused duly armed with deadly weapons emerged on the road at about 01:00 a.m (night) where the complainant and his witnesses identified the accused persons on the light of the car, who made fires on the tyres of the car in order to stop the car and five bullets hit the tyres of car and it was stopped; thereafter, accused persons robbed the complainant and his witnesses namely Zakir and Irfan. P.Ws in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. have supported the version of the complainant. 

6.                Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that he learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber granted bail to the co-accused on filing of affidavit by the complainant, which is unfortunate that the present offence is cognizable offence and non compoundable offence, but the learned trial Court on the basis of mere affidavit granted bail to the co-accused, which is bad in the eyes of law, since this offence is against the society and such type of offences are increasing day bay day.  It is very difficult for the respectable persons to survive in such a situation when the accused party fired bullets on tyres to stop the vehicle and the conduct of the applicant/accused is very cruel and harsh.  Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has not pleaded any malafide or ill-will on the part of the complainant to believe that he has been implicated falsely in this case, which is requirement of the pre-arrest bail.  Resultantly, instant Criminal Bail Application is dismissed. The interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant/accused vide Order dated 15.02.2023 is hereby recalled.

7.                Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

                                J U D G E

 

 

Manzoor