ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-371 of 2024

(Nadeem Ali Shaikh Vs. The State)

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For the hearing of the bail application.

19.07.2024.

Mr. Fayaz Ali Shaikh, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Ghulam Rasool Narejo, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State.

  -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with the rest of the culprits, by making trespass into the house of complainant Saleemullah after keeping him and his witnesses under fear of death and wrongful restraint, robbed them of their gold ornaments, cash, and other belongings, for which the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, has sought the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 497 Cr. PC.

3.        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been involved in this case falsely by the police based on the statement of co-accused Ali Dino, otherwise, he has nothing to do with the alleged incident, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on the point of further inquiry, which is opposed by learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant by contending that the applicant has himself confessed his guilt before the police at the time of investigation.

4.        Heard arguments and perused the record.

5.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with a delay of about two days, yet it does not contain the name and description of the applicant which appears to be surprising. The applicant has been arrested based on a statement of co-accused Ali Dino, which could hardly be used as evidence. No identification parade of the applicant has been arranged. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the applicant has confessed his guilt before the police, even then such confession could not be used against him as evidence in terms of Article 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. There is no recovery of any sort from the applicant. The case has finally been challaned and there is no likelihood of absconsion or tampering with the evidence on the part of the applicant. In these circumstances, a case for the release of the applicant on bail on the point of further inquiry is made.

6.        Under the discussed circumstances, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 

7.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE