ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 544 of 2011.          

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For hearing.

04.11.2011.

            Mr. Yasin Khan Babar, Advocate for applicant.

            Mr. Muhammad Bux Qazi, State counsel.

~~~~

Ahmed Ali M. Sheikh, J:   Applicant Raheem Jhangwani alongwith others has been booked in crime No.35/2009, of P.S Naperkot, District Shikarpur, registered for offence under section 302, 201, 342, 34 P.P.C. Through instant application he seeks post arrest bail, as his bail plea has been turned down by the trial Court vide order dated 21.09.2011.

2.         Contents of the prosecution case in nutshell are that on 20.5.2009, at 11.9.30 p.m. deceased lost his life at the hands of accused Muhammad Ali, Saeed Ali, Mehrab, Rehmatullah, Gajjan, and Baboo. In this respect case was registered on the same day at 1600 hours.

3.         Mr. Yasin Khan Babar, learned counsel for the applicant contended that name of the applicant does not appear in the F.I.R, nor his features or Hulia have been mentioned; no identification has been held, though the complainant and applicants are resident of the same locality, but he did not disclose his name in the F.I.R. It is further contended that though name of the Gajjan who is real brother of the applicant transpired in the F.I.R, but subsequently on 22.5.2009, complainant implicated present applicant through his further statement. Per learned counsel it has been laid down by the apex Court that further statement is not equated with the F.I.R.  In support of his contention learned counsel referred to case of Abid Ali alias Ali v. The State (2001 SCMR 165).

4.         Mr. Muhammad Bux Qazi learned State counsel did not controvert the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and very candidly conceded for grant of bail.

5.         Admittedly, name of the applicant does not appear in the F.I.R; neither his features or descriptions have mentioned in the F.I.R; no identification parade has been held. The only piece of evidence against present applicant is further statement of the complainant. Apart from above, there is another aspect of the case that co-accused Mehrab and Baboo have been let off by the police and their names have been placed in column No.2 of the challan sheet. In view of the above no sanctity can be attached to the prosecution case. For the foregoing reasons and in view of dicta laid down by Hon’ble apex Court in Abid Ali alias Ali’s case (supra), I am of the considered view that case of applicant falls within ambit of further enquiry, as prosecution could not collect sufficient material connecting applicant with commission of the offence. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant application is allowed. Let applicant shall be released on bail upon his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (One hundred thousands) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. However, observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice case of either party.

                                                                                      Judge

Ansari/*