IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Present;

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 477 of 2021

Applicants : Ali Hyder Shah S/o Bashir Hussain Shah Syed

Through Mr. Shamsuddin N.Kobhar Advocate

Respondent : The State

Through Ms. Sania Qureshi, FIA Crime and AHTC Sukkur

Dated of hearing: 13.08.2021

Date of order : 13.08.2021

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J – Through this bail application, the applicant/accused seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.19 of 2021 registered at Police Station ‘FIA’ Crime Circle Sukkur for offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 468, 471, 34 and 109 PPC. The bail plea of the applicant/accused has been declined by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Central), Hyderabad vide order dated 28.07.2021.

2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, therefore same could not be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that a counterfeit signature of the applicant/accused was ascribed on the answer copies of the co-accused Syed Shah Hyder Shah, as such the applicant/accused is not played any role in the alleged offence. He further submits that the challan of the case has been submitted and the applicant/accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation. He lastly prayed that the applicant/accused may be admitted to bail.

4. On the other hand Investigating Officer of the case Inspector Ms.Sannia Qureshi is present and vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused by contending that sufficient material is available on record, which connects the applicant/accused in the commission of the offence, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and the complainant and perused the record. Admittedly the alleged incident had taken place in September 2019, whereas, the FIR has been lodged on 13.07.2021, as such there is delay of 22 months in lodgment of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. Further, the case of the prosecution is that Syed Shan Hyder Shah is not competent for the Job as ASI as alleged in the FIR and thereafter the inquiry was conducted and it was found that accused Syed Shan Hyder Shah arranged his job by using unfair means. The role assigned to the present applicant/accused is that he was performing his duties as Invigilator and put his signatures on the answering copies of the different candidates including Syed Shan Hyder Shah. Per learned counsel for the applicant/accused the signature ascribed on the answering copy of the said Syed Shan Hyder Shah was counterfeit. On query of the Court complainant Ms.Sannia Qureshi, who is present; whether she has obtained any specimen signatures from the present applicant/accused to verify the same whether the same are genuine or not? She replied that she has not done so. The allegations against the present applicant/accused require further inquiry as to whether on the answering copy his signature is genuine or not and it could be determined after recording evidence of the expert. The applicant/accused is in jail and he is no more required for the purpose of investigation. In such circumstances, the applicant/accused has made-out a case for grant of bail in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the instant bail application is allowed and the applicant/accused is enlarged on bail subject to furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One Lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Above are the reasons of a short order dated 13.08.2021 whereby this bail application was allowed and applicant was granted bail.

6. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the trial.

Judge

ARBROHI