IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT

LARKANA

Present:

                        Mr. Muhammad Saleem Jessar-J.

                                                                        Mr. Jawad Akbar Sarwana-J.

Crl. Bail Appln. No. D-  09 of 2024.

Applicant:                   Jumo, through Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate.

Complainant:              Muhammad Raheem, through Mr. Muhammad Hanif Noonari, Advocate (heard through video-link from Principal Seat of this Court at Karachi) assisted Mr. Ashique Hussain Kalhoro, Advocate.

Respondent:                The State, Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of Hearing:         27.03.2024.

Date of Order:                        27.03.2024.

Date of Reasons:        03.04.2024.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J- Through this bail application, applicant Jumo son of Dad Muhammad alias Dadu Buriro seeks his admission to post-arrest bail in the     case emanating from F.I.R No. 132 of 2023, registered at Police-Station A-Section Thull (District Jacobabad), for offence punishable under Sections 395, 396, 397, 384, 386, 120-B, 337-A (iii) and 35 P.P.C, read with Sections 6 (2)(k) and 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The case has been challaned, which is now pending for trial                   before the Court of learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, vide Special Case No. 63 of 2023 re; The State v. Ariz Muhammad Buriro and others. Similar          prayer made by applicant to the trial Court was declined by way of order          dated 27.01.2024.Hence instant bail application has been maintained.

            2.         Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the material available on the record. After scanning available record in the light of arguments advanced by learned counsels, we have observed as under: -

(a) There is delay of about five days in registration of the F.I.R., and as per well-settled law the delay in reporting the matter to police is always considered to be fatal for the prosecution, because the delay is falling within the ambit of deliberation and afterthought.

(b) The name of applicant is not appearing in the F.I.R; no marks of identification OR descriptions of unknown accused persons have been mentioned in the F.I.R. However, for first time his name was introduced in the case on the basis of further statements of complainant and prosecution witnesses recorded in terms of Section 162 Cr.P.C, which too are recorded belatedly by 22-days of lodgement of FIR. Even otherwise, no active role of extortion, robbery, firing at deceased or causing butt blows to injured Niaz Ahmed has been assigned to the applicant in further statements of complainant and witnesses. As per established precedents in cases reported as 2003 SCMR 426, 2008 SCMR 1556, 2012 YLR 486, 2012 YLR 515, 2010 P.Cr.L.J 1782 and SBLR 2008 Sindh- 1137, a further statement of complainant and witnesses is a false/ fake improvement and same would neither be equated with first information report (FIR), nor be read as part of it and this brings the case within the ambit of further enquiry.

(c) There is no recovery of any incriminating article from possession of applicant, which may connect him with commission of alleged offence.

(d) As per contents of the challan sheet, there is also another version the alleged incident, which to a certain extent is different from contents of F.I.R and statements of witnesses. This version relates to offense punishable under Section 120-B P.P.C. Though, at the time of registration of F.I.R, it was not the case of prosecution at-all. 

(e) Moreover, the challan of the case has already been filed and custody of applicant is no more required to police for the purpose of investigation and his detention in jail would not bear out any useful purpose.

            3.         As a sequel to the above observation, we have found the case against the applicant/ accused, to be a case for further probe. Consequently, applicant Jumo Buriro was granted bail vide short order dated 27.03.2024, upon his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two hundred thousand rupees) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. These are the reasons for short order.

            4.         Before parting with this order, it is made clear that, observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice case of either party at trial.

Judge

                                  Judge

Ansari