ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 587 of 2020.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

07.12.2020.

1.         For orders on office objections.

2.         For hearing of bail application.

            Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Advocate for applicant.

            Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General.

~~~~~~~

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J.    Through this application, Applicant Jamil son of Azad Sundrani has sought for grant of pre-arrest bail in F.I.R No. 26 of 2020, registered with P.S Bhitai Colony (District Kashmore @ Kandhkot), for offences punishable under Section 365-B P.P.C. His similar prayer was declined by learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, vide Order dated 29.10.2020. The applicant was admitted to interim pre arrest bail by this Court on 13.11.2020.

            The facts of prosecution case are mentioned in the F.I.R, copy whereof is attached with this bail application, therefore, the same are not reproduced herein the order.

            Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that not only complainant of the case, namely, Hazaro but two PWs, namely, Sijawal and Mengal sworn-in and filed their affidavits before learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot exonerating the applicant from commission of alleged offence and extending no objection. Learned counsel further contended that, complainant Hazaro and P.W Sijawal have also sworn-in and filed their affidavits before this Court again exonerating applicant from commission of alleged offence and extending no objection to grant of bail to applicant. Per learned counsel, on basis of affidavits of complainant and both witnesses the learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, confirmed interim bail of three co-accused but declined bail to applicant only on the ground that alleged abdcutee Mst. Suhni Khatoon has nominated him in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C but learned Judge has overlooked her cross-examination, in which she has specifically stated that accused present in Court are not same who kidnapped her.  Learned counsel submits that in view of above circumstances, case of applicant falls within ambit of further enquiry entitling applicant for grant of bail.

            Learned D.P.G. did not controvert above submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and extended no objection for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail to applicant.

            It is matter of record that complainant and two prosecution witnesses have exonerated applicant from commission of alleged offence by filing their affidavits. It is also matter of record that alleged abductee Mst. Suhni has also not identified the present accused to be the same, who had kidnapped her.  These facts make the case of applicant as one of further enquiry as envisaged under Section 497 (2) Cr.P.C. Moreover, learned D.P.G also conceded for confirmation of interim pre arrest bail to applicant. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed. Interim pre arrest bail already granted to applicant vide Order dated 13.11.2020 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

                                                Judge

Ansari