ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. D-   470 of 2011.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

21.06.2012.

1. For order on office objection.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Shahani, State counsel.

~~~~

          The applicant Naqeef Mazari has been indicted in Crime No.10/2011 of P.S Kashmore, for offences under section 365-A, 395 P.P.C, read with sections 6 & 7 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. Since bail plea of the applicant has been turned down by the trial Court, vide order dated 23.09.2011, hence through this application he seeks anticipatory bail.

          At the very outset learned counsel for the applicant has contended that applicant is innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged incident; neither name of the applicant finds place in the F.I.R, nor his descriptions or Hulia has been given. Per learned counsel, during course of investigation prosecution could not collect any piece of evidence against the applicant except the statement of co-accused.

          Conversely, learned State counsel very candidly conceded and did not oppose application.

          Perusal of the F.I.R would reveal that on 15.1.2011, three accused alongwith two women hired taxi car of the complainant and when they reached at Kashmore, the passengers tried to abduct the complainant and in the meanwhile a police party reached there and an encounter took place between the assailants and the police party. During encounter police apprehended Ganj Ali alias Choto, Amir Bux, Abdul Wahid, Mst. Gul Khatoon and Mst. Pathani. The police also recovered kalashnikov and other weapons from male accused. After usual investigation accused were sent up to face the charge.

          The perusal of the F.I.R would stipulate that neither name of the applicant appears in F.I.R nor his marks of identification have been given. Admittedly, there is no iota of evidence against the applicant except the statement of co-accused, which carried no evidentiary value. It is held in case of Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq v. The State reported as 1992 P.Cr.L.J 1910, as well as the case of Mumtaz Shaikh v. The State reported as 1993 P. Cr. L.J 1919, that even the confessional statement of co-accused alone is not sufficient to convict the accused and in above cases the bail was granted to the accused on the ground that except the confessional statement of co-accused prosecution could not collect any material connecting the accused with the commission of the crime. Besides, the applicant has been acquitted in connected case registered under crime No.11/2011 of P.S Kashmore with regard to the alleged encounter with the police party.

          In view of dictum laid down in the above cases and given circumstances, we are of the considered view that case of the applicant requires further enquiry. Consequently, order dated 08.09.2011, whereby interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

                                                                        Judge

                                                Judge