O R D E R     S H E E T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Application No.S-285 of 2012

Date	Order with signature of the Judge

For Hearing

27.06.2012

Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Mahar, advocate for applicants.

Miss Shazia Surahio, State counsel.

                                    -------

Abdul Rasool Memon, J.- By this order, I would like to dispose of an application under section 497, Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicants Manjhi and Ghalib alias Zore Khan who are booked in crime No.74/2012 of Police Station, A/Section, Kandhkot to face their trial under section 395, P.P.C.

2.         The allegation against the present applicants is that complainant along with his brothers Ali Gohar and Bangul went on motorcycle on 20.03.2012 and when they reached at link road leading from Kandhkot to Bijar Wah, at about 9:00 a.m., two motorcycles, whereupon five persons were sitting, crossed them in speed and stopped their motorcycle. They were identified as Ghalib alias Zore Khan, Punhal and Manjhi and two unknown. They committed robbery of Rs:24,000/- and mobile phones from complainant and PWs. The complainant thereafter lodged the report.

3.         Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that though the parties are residents of Taluka Kashmore as it is evident from the address of the complainant mentioned in the FIR but they managed this case falsely against present applicants at Police Station A-Section Kandhkot. He has contended that punishment provided for the said offence U/S 395 PPC is not less then four years and not more than ten years and the said offence has been held not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr. P.C. Considering this dictum bail was granted to the accused in the cases of Shehzore v. The State and another (2006 YLR 3167), Zahid Maseeh and another v. The State (2012 MLD 814). He has contended that accused are in judicial custody where charge is yet to be framed against them. In such circumstances in case Under Section 395/511, P.P.C., the accused were admitted to bail. Reliance is placed on a case of Nasir Khkhar v. State (2006 YLR 3042).

4.         Miss Shazia Surahio, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that name of the present applicants appear in the FIR and offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

5.         I have given careful consideration to the arguments and gone through the relevant papers. Admittedly, there is no recovery from the possession of accused though they have remained in police custody for 14 days after their arrest. The applicants have pleaded relationship and enmity with the complainant party.  In view of dictum laid down in case reported as Shehzore (Supra) and Zahid Maseeh (Supra), alternate sentence has been provided for offence of dacoity not less then four years and not more than 10 years, therefore, lesser punishment should be considered by the court for the purpose of bail which does not come within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr. P.C., hence relying on the case of Tariq Bashir v. State (PLD 1995 SC – 34), I hereby admit the applicants on bail subject to furnishing their surety in the sum of Rs:50,000/- each with PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.   

                                                                                                            Judge