IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

Crl. Bail Application No.S-50 of 2024

 

DATE OF

HEARING

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

For hearing of bail application.

 

 

Date of hearing     06.02.2024

 

 

Mr. Parvez Ali Maitlo, Advocate for applicant.

 

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

 

Complainant Ali Asghar Maitlo, present in person.

                   ***************

 

 

                                    O R D E R

 

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J;               Through this bail application the applicant Niaz Ali son of Ali Gul Maitlo seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.45/2023 Police Station, Ahmedpur for offences punishable under Sections 460,34 PPC (In challan 460, 302 PPC). Earlier his bail application was declined by Additional Sessions Judge-II,  Khairpur vide order dated 22.12.2023.

 

2.       Facts of the case are mentioned in the FIR and copy whereof is attached with bail application therefore, there is no need to re-produce the same.

 

3.       It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives due to enmity; that there is                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         One day delay in lodging of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that the name of present applicant does not transpire in the FIR nor any description has been mentioned in it, however, he was belatedly nominated by the complainant through supplementary statement recorded on 04.08.2023 but no source of information was disclosed however, role assigned against present applicant/accused that he was identified on the basis of mass (Gorho) on the right arm of applicant to be same culprit of this case which is weakest type of evidence; that no recovery of crime weapon has been effected from the present applicant hence, case requires further inquiry. Under these circumstances he prayed for grant of bail. In support of his contentions he places his reliance upon case of Abdul Wahid v. The State and another (2022 SCMR 1954) and Abid Ali alias Ali v. The State (2011 SCMR 161).

 

4.       As against, Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by complainant submits that applicant is named as one of the accused as depicted from the statements of PWs which were got recorded by the I.O, who have fully supported the further statement of complainant. Further contended that sufficient material is available on record which connects the present applicant in the alleged commission of offence, therefore, he opposes the grant of bail and seeks its dismissal.

 

5.       Heard parties and perused the material available on record.

 

6.       Perusal of record reflects that there is delay of about one day in lodging of the FIR for which no explanation has been furnished by the complainant. It is an admitted fact that name of applicant/accused is not mentioned in the FIR but his name was introduced by the complainant in his further statement recorded on 04.08.2023 after delay of about two months. It is hardly believable that complainant remained silent for about two months after the incident though they were familiar to each other being co-villagers and there is no explanation available in this regard therefore, case requires further inquiry. No source of information has been disclosed, no tangible material has been collected nor recovery of crime weapon has been effected from the present applicant. From the material available on record I am of the view that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is involved in the present case. I am taking guideline from dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Jaahangir Afzal v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another reported in 2020 SCMR 935 wherein the Supreme Court has held that “Evidential value of supplementary statements with the possibility of a space to reconcile differences between the witnesses is an exercise that can be best undertaken after recording of evidence and as such petitioner’s culpability for the present is squarely covered by subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; a case for grant of bail stands made out”.

 

7.       It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as a matter of right and not of grace. Reliance is placed upon cases of Azhar Iqbal v. The State (2013 SCMR 383) and Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230).

 

8.       The upshot of above discussion is that the applicant has successfully made out a good prima facie case for further inquiry within the meaning of Sub-Section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The applicant is behind bars and trial has not yet concluded. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The applicant Niaz Ali Maitlo is granted bail subject to furnishing his solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

 

 Bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.

 

 

 

                                                                                           J U D G E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ihsan/*