ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

1^st Cr. Bail Appln.No.S- 215 of 2023.

1^st Cr. Bail Appln.No.S- 220 of 2023.

.

Date                            Order with signature of Hon’ble Judge

1.For orders on office objection as flag A.

2.For hearing of bail application              

23.10.2023.

Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, advocate for the applicant Muhammad Iqbal Channo.  

Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, advocate for the applicant Mushtaque Ahmed Jatoi.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro,Addl. P.G a/w  Insp.Zahid Bashir Khoso, I.O.

O R D E R.

                        By this common order, I propose to dispose of these two bail applications bearing No.215 and 220 of 2023 as both have arisen out of Crime No.03 of 2019 of P.S ACE Jacobabad registered for an offence under Sections 161, 409, 420, 467, 468, 477-A, 34 PPC R/W Section 5(2) Act-II of 1947. The case as reported has been challaned which is now pending for trial before the Court of Special Judge, Anticorruption (Provincial), Larkana vide Special Case No. Nil of 2023 re: State v. Mushtaque  and others.  The applicants preferred their respective bail applications before the Court below which, by virtue of its common order dated 16.4.2023, were declined, hence these bail applications.

2.                    Since the facts of the prosecution case are already mentioned in the FIR as well as impugned order, there is no need to reproduce the same.

3.                    Learned counsel submits that at the time of occurrence  the applicants were  posted as Mukhtiarkar and allegations against them  is that they had issued certain tokens in respect of different khatedars/flood affectees, however, they had not misused  the fertilizer  as claimed by the prosecution as the stock of fertilizer was lying  in custody of  co-accused Abdul Rasheed who was posted as Assistant Director Agriculture, Thul.  They further submit that co-accused Abdul Rasheed has been granted pre arrest bail by the trial Court in terms of its order dated 28.9.2023. In support of their contentions, the learned counsel have placed on record true copy of bail order of co-accused Abdul Rasheed under the cover of statement, which is taken on record. They further submit that  the allegations  against the applicants  was  that they issued tokens and as far as embezzlement is concerned, the same  has not been done  by them as the fertilizer was in custody  of co-accused  who has been granted bail.  They lastly argued that during investigation the case was disposed of by I.O  under ‘C’ Class  but the trial Court  by not concurring  with the police report, took cognizance  against them and directed the I.O to submit charge sheet against them, hence the case against the applicants requires further enquiry.

4.                     Learned Addl. P.G  submits that no material has been brought on record, therefore, this being case of further enquiry, he does not oppose the bail applications.

5.                     Heard arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record. Admittedly per prosecution allegations the role attributed to the applicants is that they being Mukhtiarkar had issued tokens in favour of different khatedars and upon receipt of said tokens they obtained the fertilizer from the co-accused Abdul Rasheed who was holding the custody of the same and therefore, the question of embezzlement to the extent of present applicants is yet to be established by the prosecution after recording of evidence of its witnesses. The co-accused Abdul Rasheed has also been granted bail and the case of applicants is at par with him, hence the law of parity does attract. Applicants are government servants therefore, question of tampering with the prosecution evidence or absconding away does not arise. Moreover the applicants after furnishing surety have not misused the concession of interim pre arrest bail extended to them, hence the case against them requires further enquiry.

6.                     The upshot of the above discussion is that the applicants have successfully made out case for pre arrest bail, same are allowed.  Resultantly the interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicants vide order dated 20.4.2023 and 02.5.2023 respectively are hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. Since entire evidence of the prosecution is based upon documents which are lying with the prosecution, therefore, trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same in shortest possible time under intimation to this Court through Additional Registrar.   

JUDGE 

Shabir