IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-143 of 2025
|
Applicant |
: |
Naseem Ahmed alias Naseem Ali s/o Qalandar Bux Buriro |
|
|
|
Through Mr. Rafique Ahmed K. Abro, advocate |
|
|
|
|
|
Complainant |
|
Ali Hyder Buriro (in person) |
|
|
|
|
|
The State |
: |
Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State |
|
|
|
|
|
Date of hearing |
|
30-04-2025 |
|
Date of order |
|
30-04-2025 |
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant criminal bail application, applicant/accused Naseem Ahmed alias Naseem Ali Buriro seeks interim pre-arrest bail in Crime No.04/2025, registered at Police Station Gaheja, for the offence U/s 324, 114, 337-H(ii), 504, F(v), 452, 34 P.P.C. Prior to this, he filed such application but the same was turned down by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shikarpur, vide order dated 12.03.2025, hence he has filed instant criminal bail application.
2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/accused is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case; that the F.I.R is lodged after the delay of about three months, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. He furthers submits that complainant claimed that Mst. Sindhoo is his wife and the applicant has evil eye on her as such on the day of incident they entered into his house and tried to kidnap her; that in order to save her life the complainant intervened, however his claim is that the fire was hit on his toe between fingers. He submits that infact no incident has taken place and the complainant has managed the certificate and lodged F.I.R against applicant/accused. He lastly submits that case has been challaned and applicant/accused is no more required for investigation, therefore, prayed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, the complainant and learned D.P.G. have vehemently opposed for confirmation of bail. The complainant is present in court and states that accused has committed the offence. However, it was enquired from him that it is his claim that on 03.11.2024, Mst. Sindhoo was his wife, however, record reflects that Mst. Sindhoo has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage in the year 2025 how could be that Mst. Sindhoo was his wife he is unable to properly reply.
5. From perusal of record, it reflects that F.I.R is delayed for three months, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. I.O of the case has failed to record the statement of Mst. Sindhoo U/S 161 Cr.P.C to support the claim of the complainant Ali Hyder that she was his legally wedded wife. Further the learned counsel for the applicant has produced the judgment dated 25.04.2025 through statement, same is taken on record, wherein Mst. Sindhoo claimed that she is wife of applicant Naseem Ahmed and she has filed suit for dissolution of marriage. If it is true that she has filed suit in the year 2025 that how it could be possible that on 03.11.2024 she can be the wife of complainant Ali Hyder.
6. At bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made. The role assigned to the applicant/accused will be determined by the trial court when the evidence will be recorded. Star witness of the incident was Mst. Sindhoo and her statement was not recorded by the I.O as such becomes case of further inquiry. The applicant has also pleaded malafide on the part of the complainant. Resultantly, instant bail application is allowed. Interim order passed earlier vide order dated 19.03.2025 is confirmed on same terms and conditions.
7. 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.
J U D G E