ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S-  364 of 2012.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

17.08.2012.

For hearing.

          Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, Advocate for applicant.

          Mr. Muhammad Bux Qazi, State counsel.

~~~~

Naimatullah Phulpoto, J:       Applicant Allahwadhayo seeks bail in Crime No.58/2012, registered at P.S Karampur, on 15.5.2012, under Sections 462-B, 324, 353 P.P.C.

2.       Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R are that complainant Ghulam Raza Admin Officer, PARCO lodged F.I.R, alleging therein that on 14.5.2012, he received telephonic call from Security Officer Major Saleem Raza that some suspected persons were walking around the PARCO pipeline at the lands of applicant/accused Allahwadhayo with intention to commit theft. On such information, security officer alongwith staff members proceeded to the pointed place and reached there at 10.30 p.m.  On the headlights of the vehicle they identified accused Allahwadhayo, Shafi Mohammad, Muneer, Mumtaz, Moujuddin alias Moujoo, Lal Bakhsh,  and Manzoor armed with kalashnikovs and three unknown persons armed with guns. It is alleged in the F.I.R that accused persons fired upon the complainant party with intention to kill; firing in self defence was also made. Thereafter, it is stated that accused left datsun and drum containing petroleum product and made their escape good. Datsun was recovered; in the datsun it is stated that there was drum containing 600 liters of oil; value has been shown as Rs.60,000/-. It is further alleged that clip was also recovered from Datsun. F.I.R of the incident was lodged under the above referred sections.

3.       Applicant/ accused Allah Wadhayo was arrested and bail application was moved, it was rejected by learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, vide order dated 27^th July, 2012.

4.       Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that actual incident of theft was un-witnessed; complainant was not eyewitness of the incident; despite cross firing with sophisticated weapons no one from either side has received any injury; there was no recovery from the applicant; case has been challaned; accused is no more required for investigation. It is also argued that pipeline passes from the lands of the applicant, who is lawful owner of the said land and there is dispute between applicant and oil company over the passing of the pipeline. In support of his contentions reliance has been placed upon a case of Qurban Ali and another v. The State (2006 MLD 530).

5.       Learned State counsel argued that name of the applicant transpires in the F.I.R; he had fired upon complainant party. he has opposed the bail application.

6.       I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant for the reasons that actual theft of oil was un-witnessed. As regards cross firing, despite firing with sophisticated weapons no one received injury from either side; there is no recovery from the applicant; there is also delay in lodging F.I.R; the name of the applicant has been shown in the F.I.R as suspect. It was also night time incident. Dispute between applicant, who is owner of the land and the oil company has also been alleged. In these circumstances, while relying upon above authority I hold that prima facie, case of the applicant requires further inquiry as contemplated under section 497 Cr.P.C. Bail is granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two hundred thousands) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

7.       Needless to mention here that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced at the time of deciding the case on merits.

                                                        Judge