IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Appln. No.  S-728 of 2024

Applicant	Saeed s/o Ali Ahmed Khakhrani
	Through Mr. Kamran Ahmed G. Gorar, Advocate for the applicant
Complainant	Abid Hussain Tunio
	Through M/s Safdar Ali G. Bhutto and Mushtaque Ali Langah, advocates
The State	Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State
Date of hearing	21-01-2025
Date of order	21-01-2025

O R D E R

OMAR SIAL, J.- Abid Hussain Tunio, on 02.09.2023, provided information of a cognizable offense at the Bakapur police station. He recorded that on 12.06.2023, he, along with Sojhro (brother), Dhani Bux (nephew), and Wajid Ali (relative), were commuting on two motorcycles for some work. On the way, they were intercepted by a motorcycle, which consisted of three people. On a display of weapons, the three accused forcefully took Sojhro’s motorcycle. And on Sojhro’s resistance, one of the unidentified person(s) fired and injured Sojhro, who succumbed to his injuries. FIR No. 44 of 2023 under sections 302,392 and 34 P.P.C was registered. The applicant, Saeed Khakhrani, was arrested on a further statement made by the complainant.

2.       I have heard the counsel for the applicant, the DPG, and the counsel for the complainant. My observations and findings are as follows.

3.       A very surprising fact in this case is that though the incident is said to have occurred on 12.06.2023, the FIR was not registered until 02.09.2023. The prosecution has not provided a cogent reason for this delay. Upon a tentative assessment, a strong presumption of consultation and deliberation before the registration of the FIR can not be conclusively eliminated at this preliminary stage.

4.       The complainant provided no description of any nature of the accused. Nor has an identification parade been held to ascertain whether the applicant was one of the accused person(s). The learned DPG submitted that the applicant was arrested on a statement recorded by the complainant 17 days after the registration of the FIR. If the applicant’s counsel's argument that the applicant is a resident of the same area as the complainant and is known to them is correct, then the fact that he was not identified on the spot would also suggest malafide.  The statement does not explain how the complainant learned that the applicant was one of the accused. No recovery has been made from the applicant. There is sufficient doubt in the prosecution case to make this a case of further inquiry.

5.       Above are the reasons for the short order dated 21.01.2025, in terms of which this post-arrest bail was granted against a Rs.100,000/- surety and a P.R. Bond in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

JUDGE