IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-569 of 2018

Applicant               :                Munawar Ali son of Arbab Ali Junejo

Through Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani,      Advocate

State                              :                  Through Mr.Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G

                                                Complainant Ghulam Shabir in person

Date of hearing   :                  10.12.2018          

Date of order      :                  10.12.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, by committing trespass into house of complainant Ghulam Shabir, committed theft of his gold ornaments and other belongings, as are detailed in his FIR, for that the present case was registered.

2.                The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Dokri and learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr.PC.

3.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party, there is unexplained delay of two days in lodgment of the FIR, the identity of the applicant at night time is a weak piece of evidence, the offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause and the applicant is in custody for more than two months and co-accused Qurban and Nadeem alias Imran Ali have already been admitted to bail by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail as according to him his case is calling for further enquiry.

4.                Learned A.P.G who is assisted by the complainant has opposed to grant of bail to applicant by contending that on arrest from the applicant has been secured Iron and Wrist Watch.

5.                In rebuttal to above, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that Iron and Wrist Watch being available at local market have been foisted upon the applicant by the police at the instance of the complainant.

6.                I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

7.                Admittedly, there is delay of about two days in lodgment of the FIR; such delay being implausible could not be lost sight of in the circumstances of the case. The identity of the applicant at night time even otherwise is appearing to be weak piece of evidence. The offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 (2) Cr.PC. The applicant is in custody for more than two months. Co-accused Qurban and Nadeem alias Imran Ali have already been admitted to bail by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. In these circumstances, the applicant could not be denied concession of bail only on the basis of recovery of Iron and Wrist Watch, being immaterial articles which could be arranged through local market. In that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail as his case is calling for further enquiry.

8.                In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

9.                The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                            J U D G E

..