IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Application No. S-630 of 2024

Cr. Bail Application No. S-757 of 2024

Applicant:                                  Mst. Mehnaz @ Mena

Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, advocate for the applicant 

Applicant:                                  Mst. Safia Patujo,

Through Mr. Kamran Ahmed Gorar,

advocate for the applicant

Complainant:                             Ali Baksh @ Bashir

                                                  (In person)

The State:                                 Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General for the State

Date of hearing:                        15-01-2025

Date of order:                            15-01-2025

O R D E R

OMAR SIAL, J:- Mst. Safia Patojo and Mst. Mehnaz alias Mena Pechuho have sought pre-arrest bail in Crime Number 152 of 2024, registered under sections 342, 395, 397, 148 and 149 P.P.C. at the Nasirabad police station.

2.       The F.I.R. mentioned above was registered on 19.09.2024 on the information provided by Ali Bux @ Bashir. He recorded that the applicants and one other woman hired his taxi to go to village Kalhoro but on the way they he was robbed by five armed men on motorcycles.

3.       I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Prosecutor General. The complainant, present in person, did not want to engage private counsel. My observations and findings are as follows.

4.       The prosecution claims that the complainant knew neither the two women nor the five men accused in this court. Yet, it is surprising that in the F.I.R., the names of all the accused are already given. The complainant, when queried, said that he did not know them but that the police had the two women in custody, and when he went to the police station he learned their names. This would suggest that the women were detained before the incident and that their names were subsequently added to the F.I.R. No identification parade was held. No recovery has taken place from these women. The other reason given by the prosecution to support its case was that one of the women was the wife of a notorious person and that she worked in league with him. No evidence of her being the woman of a notorious person or her involvement in crime is on record. Section 342 P.P.C. is bailable. No allegation of causing hurt to the complainant has been alleged against the women; thus, a charge under section 394 P.P.C. requires further inquiry. For the remaining sections to come into play against the women, common intention must be proved at trial. The gender of the applicants also entitles them to a more lenient view.

5.       The reasons for the short order dated 15.01.2024, in which the applicants were admitted to post-arrest bail, are above.

JUDGE