IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT

LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 166 of 2024.

Applicant:                   Karam Ali Golato and another, through Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate.

Complainant:              Major Nadeem Ahmed Qureshi, through Mir Ahmed Raza A. Sundarni, Advocate.

Respondent:                The State, through Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of Hearing:         18.04.2024.

Date of Order:                        18.04.2024.

Date of Reasons:        19.04.2024.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J: Applicants Karam Ali son of Allah Rakhio and 2. Khuda Bux son of Karam Ali, who have been booked in a case/ crime No. 08 of 2024, registered at Police Station Buxapur, for offenses punishable under Sections 462-B, 462-F and 427 P.P.C., are seeking their release on bail, after their similar plea was declined by learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, vide Order dated 19.03.2024.

            2. Concise facts of the prosecution case are already mentioned in the impugned order in its para No.2, which for the sake of convenience are reproduced hereunder:

            “It is alleged in the F.I.R by the complainant Major Nadeem Ahmed that on 31.01.2024 at land of accused Karam Ali Golato situated in Deh Shahpur, the present accused Karam Ali and Khuda Bux had tampered/ abetted in tampering with distribution pipeline of petroleum belonging to PARCO by inserting a pipe for purpose of committing theft of oil and also damaged PARCO pipe line. In this regard, they were booked and challaned in the instant case and such F.I.R was lodged on 31.01.2024 at 1715 hours at P.S Buxapur.”

            3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Advocate for complainant as well as learned D.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) Admittedly, per contents of FIR, there has been only attempt of committing theft of oil from PARCO pipeline.

(b) The alleged incident is un-seen and un-witnessed, as according to contents of F.I.R itself none of the complainant party had seen any of the culprits at the spot at the relevant time.

(c) The complainant has shown his doubt to the effect that he suspects that the owner of the land and his sons i.e. applicants may be involved in the offense.

(d) There is no direct iota of evidence against applicants, which may connect them in the commission of alleged offence.

(e) It is well established law that, mere involvement in a heinous offense by itself does not constitute any ground to refuse bail to the accused, who otherwise is entitled to the concession of bail.

            4. In view of above observation, there appear sufficient grounds for further inquiry into guilt of the applicants. As such, bail application in hands was allowed vide short Order dated 18.04.2024, whereby the applicants were granted bail subject to furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One hundred thousand rupees) each and P.R bonds to satisfaction of learned trial Court. These are reasons for short order.

            5. Needless, to mention here that observations made herein above are tentative in nature for deciding the bail application, and would not prejudice case of either party at trial.

                                                       Judge

Ansari