IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Application No. S-652 of 2024

Cr. Bail Application No. S-773 of 2024

Applicant:                                  Mst. Sameena @ Safia

Through Mr. Kamran Ahmed Gorar,

advocate for the applicant

Applicant:                                  Mst. Mehnaz @ Mena

Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, advocate for the applicant 

Complainant:                             Zahid Hussain Jatoi,

                                                  (In person)

The State:                                 Through 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. Sameena @ Safia Patojo and Mst. Mehnaz alias Mena Pechuho have sought pre-arrest bail in Crime Number 131 of 2024, registered under sections 395, 215, and 412 P.P.C. at the Darri police station.

2.       The F.I.R. mentioned above was registered on 18.09.2024, based on the information provided by Zahid Hussain Jatoi. He recorded that on 10.09.2024, the applicants and one other woman hired his taxi to go to the village of Kalhoro, but on the way, they were robbed by two armed men on a motorcycle.

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 prosecution, when queried, said that the complainant did not know them but that the police had the two women in custody, and it was the police that had revealed the names. This would suggest that the women were detained before the incident and that their names were subsequently added to the F.I.R. Perhaps this is why the 8-day delay in registration of the F.I.R. remains unexplained. Malafide on the part of the police and the complainant cannot be conclusively ruled out. No identification parade was held. No recovery has taken place from these women. There is no allegation of the applicants receiving stolen property; thus, a charge under section 412 must be explained at trial. An offense under section 215 is bailable; in any case, the facts of the case do not reveal the ingredients of this section. Whether the women shared acommon intention with those accused of actually committing the robbery must be proved at trial. The gender of the applicants also entitles them to a more lenient view.

5.       An offence 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.

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

JUDGE