IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

1^st Criminal Bail No.S-111 of 2025

Imran Bhutto

V/S

The State

Applicant:                                          Imran son of Sikandar Bhutto

Through Mr. Saeed Ahmed Panhwar, Advocate.

Complainant:                                                Mehran Ali son of Qurban Ali Chandio

State:                                                  Through Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy

Prosecutor General, Sindh.    

Date of Hearing:                               21.04.2025

Date of Decision:                             21.04.2025

O R D E R

Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, J.-  Applicant Imran Bhutto seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.396/2024, registered under sections 397 P.P.C at Police Station Mehar. Earlier the applicant had filed bail application for the same relief, but same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mehar vide order dated 18.02.2025. Hence this bail application.

2.                     Complainant Mehran Ali Chandio has alleged in the F.I.R. that he alongwith his brother Sarwan and friend Abdul Rasool were on walk through Theba road and when reached near pond of Dhani Bux, accused Naseer, Imran and Khalid intercepted them, who were on a motorbike and robbed Vigotel 102(i) cell phone and cash of Rs.2000/- from them and went away on that bike.  They reported incident to police. The police investigated case and arrested present applicant/accused on 02.12.2024; and since then he is in jail.

3.         Learned counsel for applicant/accused contends that applicant is innocent and he has been roped into a false case by police at instance of complainant, who was influential persons of the area. The applicant is a labourer and there is political rivalry between them, therefore, all three accused persons from one family have been roped in this case.

4.         Complainant is called absent despite various notices issued against him.  Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh has half heartedly opposed grant of bail on the score that alleged incident is a robbery and accused persons by show of weapons have robbed the complainant party on road; the incidents of robbery are increasing in society day by day; therefore, accused is not entitled for concession of bail.

5.         Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused material available on record. Despite several notices, complainant has failed to turn up before this Court and accused is behind the bars, therefore, this Court cannot wait for complainant; hence with assistance of learned Deputy Prosecutor General, this bail application is being decided.

6.         Perusal of F.I.R. reveals that Section 397 P.P.C is not attracting in the facts and circumstances of the case as accused allegedly involved are less than five in a number; there is no allegation of causing injuries to complainant party and application of section 397 P.P.C would not be attracted.  It appears that police in order to involve applicant in an offence of heinous nature have applied section 397 P.P.C, otherwise it was a case of simple snatching falling under section 392 P.P.C; the complainant party have failed to describe details of vigotel cell phone even the sim card used in the said mobile has not been detailed in F.I.R.  However, application of section 397 P.P.C or 392 P.P.C is yet to be determined by the trial Court after recording pro and conrtra evidence of the witnesses; no recovery has been affected from the present applicant and recovery of Rs.2000/- has been affected from co-accused Naseer, who has been granted bail by the trial Court and case of the present applicant is on better footing to that of co-accused who was already granted bail.

7.         In view of foregoing reasons and discussion, I am of the considered view that the applicant has successfully made out his case for grant of bail on further enquiry and rule of consistency. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application is allowed. Applicant Imran Bhutto is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

8.         Before parting with  this matter, it would be appropriate to refer this case to S.S.P. Dadu for re-investigation as from the face of record, it appears that police has been motivated to involve present applicant in this case otherwise complainant himself contend that no injury was caused to them and as to why incharge ASI Aijaz Ali Jogro of Police Station Mehar inserted section 397 P.P.C in the column of detail of offence thus from face of it, it was not appropriate even the motorcycle, which was allegedly owned by the accused persons was recovered from them and presently parked at the police station. Under the circumstances, S.S.P. Dadu is further directed to conduct enquiry into the matter and submit report under section 173 Cr.P.C. to the trial court. He shall also take departmental action against the delinquent who has recorded this F.I.R. under their relevant provisions of law and if he is found involved in such misconduct, appropriate action may be taken against him.

                        Bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

Judge

Manzoor