THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
1stCr. Bail Application No.S-530 of 2024
Applicants: Dilbar and Abdullah,
ThroughMr.Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate.
Respondent: The State through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Date of hearing: 26.09.2024
Date of Order: 26.09.2024
O R D E R
KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J.-Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicants Dilbar, son of Deedar Ali and Abdullah, son of Sobo, both by caste Nindwani, seek post-arrest bail in the case emanating from F.I.R No.17/2024, registered at Police Station Buuxapur, District Kashmore at Kandhkot, for an offence punishable under Sections 399, 402, P.P.C after their bail plea was declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore at Kandhkot vide Order dated: 28.03.2024.
2. As per the prosecution, an F.I.R. No.17/2024 was lodged on 09.03.2024 at 1240 hours by complainant A.S.I. Sanaullah Domki, mentioning therein that on 09.03.2024, he left P.S. along with P.C. Ghulam Hussain, PC Rahib Hussain, PC Nazir Ahmed and D.P.C. Abdul Jabbar for patrolling in the jurisdiction vide daily diary entry No.8 at 1000 hours. During patrolling, the complainant received spy information that a gang of offenders was available with the intent to commit an offence on the Indus Highway road leading from Kashmore to Kandhkot near the Soomaro curve. The complainant informed subordinate staff and reached the pointed place at about 1130 hours, where they saw and identified the accused Dilbar, Abdullah, Nawab, and Jaffar armed with T.T. Pistols and two unidentified persons armed with guns, with uncovered faces, who would be identified if seen again was available on the southern side of the road in the Jungle of Laee. On the approach of the police, all the accused escaped away towards the southern side. Thus, the complainant returned to P.S. and lodged an F.I.R. for the incident.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicants has contended that the applicants/accused are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that no police official was injured in the alleged incident; that the weapons attributed to the applicants/accused are foisted one and no specific role has been assigned against the applicants/accused. Therefore, he prayed that the applicants/accused may be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicants/accused on the ground that the names of the applicants/accused are mentioned in the F.I.R; therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the Applicants, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, and perused the material available on record.
6. Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code addresses the preparation for committing dacoity, while Sections 400 and 401 pertain to individuals associated with gangs of dacoits and thieves. No evidence on record indicates the accused's prior involvement in any dacoity or theft cases. The application of Sections 399, 400, and 401 of the Pakistan Penal Code requires further investigation and does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, bail is generally granted in such cases. No exceptional circumstances exist in the present case that would justify denying bail to the applicants.
7. In view of the above, applicants are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand)each and P.R bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. Needless to mention, 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.
Judge
M Yousuf P/**
MYousuf P/**