IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 153 of 2024.

Applicants:                  Niaz Hussain and 2 others, through Mr. Niaz Ali Memon, Advocate.

Respondent:                The State, through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.

Date of Hearing:         15.04.2024.

Date of Order:                        15.04.2024.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J: Through this application, applicants Niaz, Nadeem and Waseem have sought for their admission to pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 14 of 2024, registered at Police Station Mirokhan (District Kamber-Shahdadkot), for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 427 P.P.C.  Their similar request was turned down by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot, vide Order dated 08.03.2024.

            2. In nutshell, the case of prosecution as per F.I.R lodged by complainant Hubdar Ali Incharge Line Superintendent SEPCO is that, on 19.02.2024 he was informed that, 11000-HT wires have been stolen away from Sijawal-Feeder at Mirokhan to Sijawal leading road near 60-Pull, as such complainant along with other staff reached pointed place, where they found footprints of six persons and ultimately after due search they came to know that the wires were stolen away by Niaz, Nadeem, Waseem and three unknown accused. Consequently, the F.I.R was registered against them.

            3. Notice issued to complainant has been returned duly served upon him, but he is called absent.

            4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Addl. P.G appearing for the State and perused the material available on record.  After scanning available record in the light of arguments advanced by learned counsels, I have observed as under: -

(a) The alleged incident is un-seen and un-witnesses, as neither complainant nor any of his witnesses have seen any accused while committing theft of 11000-H.T wires. The incident is said to have taken place in dark hours of the night and none had witnessed the incident.

(b) It is only word and claim of complainant that, they came to known that applicants/ accused and three unknown persons have committed theft, but no any source of such information has been disclosed by the complainant.

(c) The Sections applied in the F.I.R do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and as per settled law the grant of bail in such cases is rule and refusal is an exception, but there appear no exceptional circumstances for refusal of bail in this case.

(d) The applicants have already joined the trial and attending the trial Court regularly.

(e) The case is being tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and as such sentence for more than three years could not be visualized.

            5. As a sequel to the above observation, I have found the case against applicants/ accused, to be a case for further probe. Consequently, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants vide Order dated 18.03.2024, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

            6. 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

Ansari