Date Order with Signature of Judge

For hearing.

06.9.2010.

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Rana Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Muhammad Hashim Leghari Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh for the State.

=====

Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh J: Through the instant application, applicant seeks post arrest bail in crime No.98/2010 of Police Station Khipro registered u/s 17(3) Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979.

2. The applicant approached the trial court but his bail plea was turned down by the trial court vide order dated 29.05.2010.

3. The contents of prosecution case in nutshell are that on 10.05.2010 at 0200 hours, applicant alongwith co-accused Saindad, Maku and two unidentified persons entered in the house of the complainant. Out of them, applicant/accused Adam, Saindad and Maku were armed with pistols while rest of accused were armed with hatchets, on gun point, they robbed eight gold bangles and cash Rs.48000/- from the complainant’s house. The complainant approached the accused but they kept him on false hopes and subsequently they refused to return robbed property.

4. It is inter alia contended by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity; FIR is belated by six days without any plausible explanation; all the P.Ws are on inimical terms with the applicant and they are related interse; no independent witness is cited in the FIR. Per learned counsel prior to this incident, civil as well as criminal litigation is going on between the parties. He added that challan has been submitted and applicant is no more required for further investigation. Learned counsel further contended that crime weapon viz. pistol and robbed properly viz. two gold bangles and cash Rs.10,000 has been foisted upon the applicant. He contended that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant and prosecution story is quite unnatural and unbelievable. Learned counsel further contended that prior to this, three false FIRs bearing Cr.No.53, 76 and 77 of 1999 have been lodged against the applicant and his famly members and such cases are pending before the trial courts. It is urged with vehemence that on 16.05.2010 ASI Muhammad Issa Hingorjo, who is relative of the complainant kidnapped the applicant and after snatching cash Rs.50,000/-, one mobile phone and one bike kept him at P.S. Khipro. In this regard, the relative of the applicant sent an application to this court through fax and such news were also published in some newspaper and on the directions of this court, civil Judge and J.M. conducted raid and did not find any entry of arrest of applicant in the relevant record of police station, therefore, a direct complaint was filed before Civil Judge and J.M. Khipro against ASI Muhammad Issa Hingorjo which is also pending before the trial court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as 1. Punhoon and 3 others Vs. The State (2006 P Cr. L J 986), 2. Mukhtar Ahmed alias Mokha Vs. The State (2000 P Cr. L J 186), 3. Nisar Vs. The State (2008 P Cr. L J 1194), 4. Suba Khan Vs. Muhammad Ajmal and 2 others (2006 SCMR 66) and 5. Falak Sher Vs. The State (1999 P Cr. L J 648).

5. Conversely, learned Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh duly assisted by Mr. Muhammad Hashim Leghari Advocate for the complainant opposed the bail plea of the applicant on the ground that his name appears in the FIR, there is recovery of 30 bore pistol, two gold bangles and cash Rs.10,000/- from the applicant. In support of his contention, he relied upon the cases reported as Liaquat Ali Vs. The State (1998 P Cr. L J 1954), Saeed Ahmed and another Vs. The State (1992 MLD 2451), Abdul Ghaffar and another Vs. The State (2008 YLR 1855) and Guddu alias Zulfiqar Vs. The State (2000 P Cr. L J 1212).

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Admittedly the name of the applicant appears in the FIR. During course of investigation applicant was arrested and police recovered crime weapon viz. 30 bore pistol as well as robbed property viz. two gold bangles and cash Rs.10,000/- from the applicant. So far the previous litigation as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, in this regard, he did not place on record any document. The direct complaint was filed on 20.05.2010 whereas this FIR was lodged on 16.05.2010.

8. In view of the above, it appears that direct complaint has been filed as counter blast of the present case. Sine the prosecution has collected sufficient material against the accused which shows that a prima-facie case exists against the present applicant. So for delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, explanation has been furnished by the complainant. Even otherwise, mere delay in lodging FIR alone is not sufficient ground for grant of bail. The law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, the same is not helpful to the case of the applicant as the facts of the cases relied upon by the counsel for the applicant are distinguishable to the case in hand.

9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in the bail application, which is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the case within three months and submit compliance report.

10. The observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party.

JUDGE.

A.K