THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail No.S-508 of 2024

Applicant:              Dilo alias Abu Bakar Siddique son of Yar Muhammad Gopang through Mr. Faheem Akhtar, Advocate.

Complainant:         Liaquat Ali, son of Ali Mardan, present in person.

The State:             Through Mr Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of Hearing:    03.10.2024

Date of Order:       03.10.2024

O R D E R

KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J. :- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, Applicant Dilo alias Abu Bakar Siddique seeks Bail Before Arrest in the case emanating from F.I.R No.258/2024, registered at Police Station Kamber-City under Sections 392, 34 P.P.C. after his bail plea was declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shahadadkot vide Order dated 28.08.2024.

2.                 The facts, in a nutshell, are that on 30.07.2024, the complainant, alongwith his son Zawar Ahsan, was on the way to the vegetable marketto purchase vegetables at wholesale rate, when at about 04:00 a.m. they reached pippil chowk, the accused intercepted them. The complainant identified the assailants as Abdul Rauf, Dilo, and one unidentified individual, who threatened them with pistols and stole Rs. 190,000, the original CNIC, vegetable purchase bills, and a cell phone, before fleeing the scene. This incident prompted the registration of the present F.I.R.

3.                 Learned counsel for the Applicant has contended that the Applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that there is delay of eight days in lodging of the F.I.R. which has not been plausibly explained by the complainant; that the complainant has no objection for grant of bail to the Applicant/accused, in this regard he has filed Affidavit of no objection before this Court. The counsel submits that an interim pre-arrest bail granted to the Applicant/accused vide order dated 05.09.2024 may be confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

4.                 Learned Deputy Prosecutor General frankly conceded to the grant of bail to the Applicant/accused on the ground that the lesser punishment in the offence with which the Applicant/accused is charged carries three years punishment, and at the bail stage, lesser punishment is to be considered, and the complainant has also raised no objection for grant of bail to the Applicant/accused. The complainant is present in person and submitted an affidavit of no objection to the confirmation of bail for the applicant/accused.

5.                 Heard learned counsel for the Applicant/learned Deputy Prosecutor General and the Complainant and perused the material available on record. 

6.                 Admittedly, the Applicant/accused is nominated in the F.I.R. with the specific role of robbery, but the complainant has filed his Affidavit of no objection for the grant of bail to the applicant/accused. In the case of Rehmat Ali v. The State, 1979 SCMR 30, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held back from expressing any opinion on the credibility or significance of the complainant's statement and the affidavits presented for the grant of bail and observed that this ambiguity is heightened to the disavowal of the prosecution case by the complainant that makes the case of the prosecution as of a "further inquiry" as per the provisions outlined in section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.]. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

"But without commenting as to what weight, if any, can and ought to be attached to the aforementioned statement of the complainant and the affidavits relied upon by the petitioners in support of his plea for bail, we are inclined to think that at this stage at least it is difficult to say if the petitioners have committed the offence, more particularly when the complainant himself seems at the moment to disown the prosecution case. In the circumstances of this we think that the case of the petitioners is one of "further enquiry" under section 497(2), Cr.P.C."

In another case, Sarwar Sultan v. The State (PLD 1994 SC 133), the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:--

"It is for the trial Court to analyze the legal worth of material to be produced by the parties including affidavits. During the hearing of bail application, the Court can make tentative assessment of the material, which is different from and not at equal footing with appraisement of evidence, which is within the ambit of jurisdiction of the trial Court."

7.                 In view of the above, instant Criminal Bail Application is allowed. The interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the Applicant/accused vide order dated 05.09.2024 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

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

Manzoor