IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

1st Criminal Bail No.S-44 of 2025

 

(Arbab Ali Shaikh v/s. The State)

 

 

DATE

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

Before:    

Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro

 

1.     For orders on office objections at flag "A".

2.     For orders on M.A.No. 486/2025 (E/A).

3.     For hearing of Bail Application.

 

Applicant:                                           Arbab Ali son of Gulshan Ali Shaikh.

Through Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate.

 

Complainant:                                      Asghar Ali son of Muhammad Bux Khoso

                                                            Through Mr. Sanaullah Bhutto, Advocate.

 

State:                                                   Through Ms. Rubeena Dhamrah, Assistant

Prosecutor General, Sindh.    

 

Date of Hearing:                                 26.05.2025

 

Date of Decision:                               26.05.2025

 

O R D E R

 

Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, J.-  Through this application, Applicant Arbab Ali Shaikh seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.121/2024, registered under sections 376(3), 377, 506/2 P.P.C of Police Station Rehmatpur. Earlier the applicant filed bail application for the same relief, but same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Larkana vide order dated 13.01.2025. Hence this bail application.

2.         The facts as unfolded in the F.I.R. are that Sajid Ali, cousin of complainant was standing near Qutub Marriage Hall; when at about 06:00 p.m. in the evening accused Arbab Ali came there and by force of pistol took him into the lands and committed act of sodomy; complainant appeared at the police station and recorded F.I.R. on the same date.

3.         Learned counsel contends that the case against the applicant/accused is false; it is second F.I.R. registered against him by the family of the victim and in the earlier F.I.R. he has been acquitted; that there is enmity between the parties over vegetable carts, which are being installed in the vegetable market, Larkana. He contends that there is no eye witness of the incident and the Forensic Report only mentioned that the semen stains were present over the shalwar of victim; however, that were matched with the semen of the accused. Learned counsel further submits that as per Medicolegal Certificate the victim is aged about 20 years, but in the F.I.R. his age has been mentioned as 14 years. He prayed for grant of bail.

4.         Learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh assisted by Mr. Sanaullah Bhutto, advocate, who files his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, taken on record.   They contend that accused is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of committing an unnatural offence with the minor boy, who is student of class-VIII and question of honour and dignity is involved, therefore, the false implication of the accused in such a heinous offence is a question mark.  The offence alleged carries punishment of Imprisonment for Life or in alternative sentence of not less than two years and not more than ten years. They further contend that the Forensic Science Laboratory Report is in positive, which prima facie connects the accused with commission of offence. They further contend that ingredients of Section 376 P.P.C are not attracted in the circumstances of the case. They vehemently opposed the grant of bail.

5.         Heard arguments of the learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. The victim of the offence is minor, aged about 14 years and student of Class-VIII. He is the sole witness of the incident and in such like cases the availability of other persons to witness the incident is not possible. The F.I.R. has been promptly lodged on the very day and the minor was referred for the medical examination, which was opined in positive. The semen stains were found available on the shalwar of victim and stand matched with the samples of the accused. There is no reason to falsely involve the applicant/accused with the commission of heinous crime as the applicant/accused is constable and his involvement in such an activity is serious misconduct on his part. The case has been challaned. In the investigation the victim appeared before the learned Magistrate, wherein he recorded 164 Cr.P.C. Statement in support of the prosecution case.  The contention of the learned counsel for the accused that in the medical examination, no injury was found on the inner part of the body and also submit that the medical certificate issued by the M.L.O, CMCH, Larkana was not final; without force as medical evidence supports the prosecution case.  The offence as alleged no doubt carries alternative punishment, whereas the lesser punishment is two years, but in such heinous nature offences the bail on the ground of alternative punishment cannot be granted. There appears to be no ground for false involvement of the accused with the commission of crime and the material available on record prima facie connects the applicant with the commission of offence.  No case for grant of bail has been made out. Consequently, instant Criminal Bail Application is dismissed.

6.                     Needless to mention here that 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.

                        Bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Judge

 

Manzoor