ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

                                              Cr.B.A.No.S-1276  of   2014                                   

DATE        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

05.01.2015.

Mrs. Razia Ali Zaman, Advocate for applicant.

            Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh Asstt.P.G.

            None for the Complainant despite issuance of Notices.

                                    =

MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, J:-             Through instant bail application, the applicant / accused namely Shakeel Ahmed Keerio S/o Bashir seeks post arrest bail in crime No.114/2014 registered at P.S. Tando Muhammad Khan U/s 392 PPC, as the bail application filed before learned trial court has been dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2014.

2.         I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.G. and my observations are as follows:-

(i)        It appears that the learned trial Court has dismissed the bail application of the present applicant/accused on the ground that the applicant/accused is nominated in the FIR and is involved in offence of snatching of motorcycle which is an act of terrorism and is increasing now a days in the Province of Sindh, particularly in Ghotki District; whereas, the Counsel for the applicant/accused has contended that no motorcycle was exclusively recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused and recovery of Nokia mobile phone has been planted against the applicant/accused. On perusal of the recovery memo as read out by the learned Assistant P.G in Court, it transpires that in fact no motorcycle was exclusively recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused and only a Nokia mobile is alleged to have been recovered from his possession. However, surprisingly, there is no disclosure with regard to model No. of Nokia mobile nor IMEI number has been mentioned. This requires further inquiry that as to whether the recovered mobile did actually belongs to the complainant or not.

(ii)       The punishment provided under section 392 PPC is a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 10 years; therefore, same also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C., whereas the applicant / accused is behind bars since last six months without any substantial progress in the case as the complainant has already filed an affidavit to the effect that he has pardoned / forgiven the applicant / accused and is not pursuing the case diligently.

(iii)       The version of complainant is that the applicant/accused and others robbed mobile phone and cash have also snatched the motorcycle and ran away, whereas, thereafter, they chased the accused and also informed their villagers and apprehended two accused persons, including the present applicant/accused. It has been stated that police came and apprehended accused were handed over to them. On perusal of material placed before this Court, it is noticed that nowhere, it has been disclosed as to how the police was informed and came in such a short period of time at the place of incident and arrested the applicant/accused. Such version of the complainant creates doubt and requires further inquiry. It has also not been disclosed in the FIR that as to what is the date and time of incident alleged to have happened in the instant matter.

3.         In view of hereinabove, I am convinced that in instant case there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry and the case of the applicant / accused was covered under section 497(2) Cr. P.C., whereas the punishment provided under Section 392 PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause, consequently the applicant / accused has made out a case for admission to bail and by means of a short order, I have granted bail to the applicant / accused on furnishing surety of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousands) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the rial Court. These are the reasons of short order passed today in court.

4.         The above bail order has been passed by me in the format prescribed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Nazir Ahmed Vs The State reported in P.L.D 2014 S.C 241, whereby I have not reproduced the entire contents of the FIR as well as the details of the arguments so raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.P.G.                          

                                                                                                            JUDGE

A.K