ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail  Appln. No.  76 of 2013.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

 05.06.2013.

            Mr. Shamasuddin Abbasi, Advocate for applicant.

            Miss. Shameem Khokhar, State Counsel.

~~~~

Aftab Ahmed Gorar, J:       Through this application, the applicant Sabir Soomro seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.02/2013, registered with P.S Shah Godrio, District Dadu, for offences punishable under Sections 380, 457 P.P.C and Article 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, after his similar prayer was declined by learned trial Court i.e. Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-II, Mehar, as well as by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mehar.

2.         The facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.12.2012, complainant Attur, lodged report with P.S Shah Godrio, which reads as under:

                        “It is complaint that, I am residing at the above mentioned address. I have a Katcha built house, consist of two rooms, facing towards east, and it is surrounded with hedges, having entrance. That on 29.11.2012, as usual after taking night meals and tethering our cattle including duo of bullocks in the courtyard, we went to sleep alongwith other inmates of the house; however early in the morning when I woke up, I found that outlet of the house was opened and one of my bullock was missing; then I raised cries as “thief-thief”, which attracted my relatives Ghaffar son of Mashooq, 2. Fida Hussain son of Yar Muhammad Chandio, resident of Shah Godrio, taluka Mehar and other neighborers, who came there running and we took foot marks of bullock, but the marks missed near Naee Dilad, then we returned back and kept on searching and enquiring; thereafter we came to know that Ghaffar alias Ghafoor, 2. Mashooq both sons of Hyder Chandio, resident of Mojhro, 3. Sabir son of Mubarak Soomro, resident of Shah Godrio, 4. Hakim son of Gehno Chanido, 5. Mohabbat son of Chanessar Chandio, resident of Pir Chutto Mirwani have committed our theft. We then asked said accused persons for return of bullock, who kept us on hopes and ultimately refused. Then we narrated all these facts to our Nekmard Nawab Muhammad Khan Chandio, who advised to report the matte to police. Now, I have come and report the matter that above named accused while entering my house have stolen away below detailed bullock from my house.”

3.         The learned counsel for the applicant contended that, there is delay of ten days in registration of the F.I.R, without offering plausible explanation, therefore, per learned counsel its lodgement with due deliberation and consultation cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel further contended that the alleged incident is un-seen and un-witnessed, as nobody has seen any culprit while committing theft of bullock from the house of complainant; per learned counsel the only evidence against the present applicant is that of recovery of bullock, therefore, the offence if any, against the present applicant would fall under Section 411 P.P.C, which is punishable only for three years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. 

4.         On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that he is nominated in F.I.R and there is recovery of stolen bullock from his possession.

5.         I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. Admittedly, the F.I.R is delayed for ten days and the explanation furnished for such delay seems to be not plausible. As per F.I.R, none of the complainant party seen any of the culprit while committing theft of bullock; however it is claim of the complainant that he came to know that such and such persons have committed theft of his bullock and no source of such information has been disclosed. The stolen bullock is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of applicant, therefore, at the most the offence against the present applicant would fall under Section 411 P.P.C, which is punishable upto three years and does not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, case of the applicant calls for further enquiry, therefore, the applicant was granted bail vide short order dated 05.06.2013, on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousands) and P.R bond in the like amount the to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, and these are the reasons for the same. 

Judge