ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S- 10 of 2012.

Dated                                   order with signature of hon’ble Judge.

1. For order on M.A No.217/2012.

2. For order on M.A No.218/2012.

3. For Hearing.                         

15.01.2013.

Mr.Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, advocate for the applicants No.1 and 2.

Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Counsel for applicant No.3.

                        Mr. Abdul Rasheed Soomro, State Counsel.

======

                        This bail application has been filed by the applicants  in respect of offence U/S 302, 34 PPC registered  as Crime No.70/2011 at P.S Sultan Kot.

                        Briefly  and precisely, both the learned counsel  for the applicants submit  that the  case of the applicants is  identical as they have not been nominated in the FIR and no mark of identification is shown   however,  the contents  of FIR reveals  that there is no specific role assigned to any  unidentified accused person.  It is further  submitted  that there  are  general allegations which are registered  in the subject FIR and as such   it is the case of further enquiry.  It is further submitted  that the further statement  of the complainant  is recorded after six days which does not disclose    the source of information as to how the subject  knowledge  was gathered  by the complainant so as to disclose  it in the further statement.   He submitted that FIR  was registered  after 18 hours of the date of incident.   The statement  of Ghous Bux S/O Dad Mohammad Kehar was recorded on 27.12.2011 and statement of Imdad  S/O Lal Bux Kehar was recorded on 20.12.2011. Perhaps  such does not constitute substantive instrument to involve the applicants  in the said FIRs.  Learned counsel for the applicants   relied upon the case of Noor Mohammad v. The State (2008 SCMR 1665) and case of  Naeem Akhtar v. The State (1996 511) and submit    that since the further statement was recorded  after considerable delay therefore, it neither  constitute an FIR nor a document which is equivalent   of the same nor it could be read as part of the same.  The other case of Naeem Akhtar (supra) was relied upon to the extent that in the  further statement source of obtaining  such knowledge was not shown or mentioned which loses its applicability and authenticity.

                        Learned State Counsel   on the other hand  has objected   to this bail application  and submitted  that   the applicant has been nominated   in the further statement   which was recorded by the complainant wherein  specific role has been assigned.  He has further submitted that  in the further statement all the three applicants have been named specifically  as  such  this ground can not be sustained that applicants have not been nominated in the FIR.

                        I have heard learned counsel for the parities and perused the record. 

                        It appears  that from bear reading of the FIR  that the same is is absolutely silent as far as names of the applicants  are concerned.  Even it shows  that  their faces  were open yet they could not be identified, nor marks of identification were disclosed.  Subsequently in terms of further statement recorded after considerable delay of six days it is not conceivable  that names of all the three applicants were disclosed as it is neither an FIR nor a document which is equivalent  or could be read as part of the same. Value of such further statement however, will be determined  subsequently keeping in view  the settled principle of law in this behalf.  At this stage,  such further statement as relied upon by the learned State Counsel can not be considered  keeping the applicant behind  bars when the FIR itself  is absolutely silent. It is a case of further inquiry and in terms of case reported in 2008 SCMR 1556, the supplementary statement of the complainant is very much distinguishable from the FIR itself. As such in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the interim pre arrest bail granted on 02.12.2012 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

JUDGE