ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S-  378   of    2013

DATE        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

06.08.2013.

Mr. Ishrat Ali Lohar, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, D.A.G. for the State.

                                    =

            Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned D.A.G. for the State.

            The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that alleged offence has taken place in the year 2009; that accused was removed from service after an enquiry on 26.08.2009 but the FIR has been registered on 07.02.2013 after a delay of about 04 years; per learned counsel the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained, which on the basis of it appears to be malafide on the part of prosecution and possibility existed that during that period, evidence might have been tampered with or exploited. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the case of Ghulam Nabi v. The State (2003 P.Cr.L.J 447); that as per charge sheet dated 16.03.2009 issued to the applicant only amount of Rs.2,41,100/- were shown to have been misappropriated by the present applicant but in the FIR the said amount has been shown as Rs.4,19,457/-; the above variation in the own documents of the prosecution makes the case of further enquiry; that whole case of prosecution rest upon documentary evidence, therefore, there is no apprehension of any tampering with the record; that the applicant was Micro Finance Officer and has no concerned whatsoever for recovery of loan amount and this fact also needs further enquiry at trial; per learned counsel the interim challan was submitted on 21.02.2013 and till yet no final challan has been submitted by the prosecution and the very charge against the accused has not yet been framed though he is in custody since 18.02.2013. He prays for grant of bail to the applicant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case law reported as Muhammad Zahid v. The State (1995 SCMR 1302) and Raza Muhammad Sial v. The State (1988 SCMR 1223).

            The learned D.A.G. on behalf of the state contends that on merits sufficient material is available against the present applicant, connecting him with the commission of alleged offence. However, he concedes that final challan has not yet been submitted and about six months have been passed, the applicant is behind the bar and no charge has been framed, therefore, on this ground he recorded no objection for grant of bail to the applicant.

            In view of above circumstances, when there is delay of four years in lodging FIR and there is conflict in respect of claim made by the applicant in office charge sheet and so also in FIR; the case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence which is in possession of the prosecution and there is no apprehension of tampering with said record and so also the learned D.A.G. has also recorded no objection on the ground that charge has not yet been framed though the applicant is behind the bar since last six months. Considering all the above factors, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, I admit the applicant on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Three lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

                                                                                                            JUDGE                                                          

Tufail0