ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 459 of 2018

 

DATE                                     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application

1.    For orders on office objection at flag ‘A’

2.    For hearing of bail application

 

10.12.2018

Mr. Irfan Ahmed Memon Advocate for the Applicant

Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Korai, Advocate for the complainant

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<

 

Amjad Ali Sahito, J-  Through this application, the applicant/accused Abdul Hakeem Jaferi, has sought post-arrest bail in Crime No.55/2018 registered at Police Station, Kandhra, District Sukkur for offences punishable under Section 397 PPC. The bail plea of the applicant/accused was declined by the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Sukkur vide order dated 21.07.2018.

2.         The facts as per FIR registered on 05.07.2018 by one Imtiaz Ali are that on 04.7.2018 he along with his brother Imdad Hussain, maternal-cousin (Marot) Abu Bakar and Wahid Bux went to Kandhra town in connection with some work, when at about 11:30 p.m (night) they reached near Seehar Garden, where they were confronted by five persons, they were identified on the light of motorcycles to be Manthar, Abdul Hakeem (present applicant) and three unknown persons and on the force of weapons, accused Abdul Hakeem abused his brother Imdad Ali to hand over whatever they possess, on which his brother resisted them, the accused Manthar robbed cash of Rs.3500/- and his wrist watch and also made direct fires from his pistol at him which hit on his right side of head, who raised cries and fell down. The complainant party entreated the accused persons in the name of Almighty Allah and Holy Messenger. Thereafter all the accused persons escaped towards northern side, hence the injured was shifted to Taluka Hospital Rohri, whereas, the complainant went and got such letter from Kandhra police station for treatment of injured and then he went to police station and lodged the FIR as stated above.

3.         Learned counsel for the applicant/accused mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that there is delay of one day in lodgment of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that all the PWs are related inter se, therefore, their statements cannot be believed as trustworthy and confidence inspiring; that this is a night time incident, therefore, the mistaken of identity cannot be ruled out; that there is no recovery of incriminating articles from the present applicant/accused; that the applicant/accused has been arrested and for the last six months he is in jail without any progress in the trial; that the medical certificate produced by the prosecution creates an offence under Section 436, PPC and maximum punishment provided for the same is upto 10 years; that since the case has been challaned and the applicant/accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation. He lastly prayed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.  In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases of  Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another ( P L D 2017 Supreme Court 733);  Ali Ahmed v. The State (2007 Y L R 1144); Abdul Razzaq v. Ist. Additional Sessions Judge and another (2015 Y L R 2595 [Sindh]); Bashir v. The State (1995 P Cr. L J 412) and Liaquat Hussain v. The State                       (2015 P Cr. L J 1812).  

4.         Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned DPG for the State have vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused and further submit that the delay has been properly explained by the complainant, because in the first instance he shifted the injured to hospital for treatment and then he went to police station and lodged the FIR; that the applicant/accused is nominated in the FIR with specific role that he robbed cash amount, wrist watch and then made direct fire from his pistol which hit the injured Imdad Hussain on his head, which is vital part of the body; hence the applicant/accused is not entitled for grant of bail.

5.         I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, learned DPG for the State and have gone through the record. It is an admitted fact that the name of the present applicant/accused has transpired in the FIR with specific role of robbing cash and wrist watch from Imdad Hussain, whereas, on his resistance he also made direct pistol shot upon him which hit on his head, who was shifted to hospital and after his treatment, the complainant went to police station and lodged the FIR, hence the delay if any caused in lodgment of the FIR has been properly explained by the complainant, whereas, the version of the complainant has been supported by the P.Ws in their 161 Cr.P C statements. The punishment provided for Section 397 PPC is upto ten years. No mala fides on the part of the complainant have been proved by the learned counsel for falsely implicating the applicant/accused in the commission of the offence, whereas, at bail stage only tentative assessment can be made, as such learned counsel for the applicant/accused has failed to make out a case for further inquiry. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused are distinguishable from the facts as mentioned in the presence case, therefore, the same cannot relied upon. In view of the above, instant bail application is dismissed. The observations made above are tentative in nature and will not affect the case of either party at the trial.

Judge

ARBROHI