IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No. S- 100/2022.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

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

2. For hearing of bail application.

O R D E R.

28.03.2022.

Mr. Ikhlaque Ahmed Balouch, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Asif Zeeshan, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional P.G.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through this order, I intend to dispose of post arrest bail application filed on behalf of applicant/accused Sagheer Ahmed son of Muhammad Usman bycaste Solangi in crime No.78/2021, offence u/s 458, 364, 120-B, 448, 34 PPC registered at police station Abad District Sukkur. Prior to this, the applicant/accused Sagheer Ahmed had filed such application for grant of post arrest bail but the same was turned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Gender Based Violence Court, Sukkur vide order dated 27.01.2022, hence he has filed instant bail application.

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

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated by complainant in his further statement which was recorded with the delay of eight months and there is no provision in the law for recording further statement of the complainant. He further contended that only on the basis of CDR, the applicant/accused was found to remain in contact with the alleged abductee and as such the applicant/accused was implicated in this case otherwise he is innocent and lastly prayed for grant of bail.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for complainant as well as learned Additional P.G vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused and stated that on the basis of further statement of complainant, applicant/accused has been implicated in this case as during investigation the CDR was collected by the police as such he is not entitled for concession of post arrest bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for complainant as well as learned Additional P.G for the State so also have gone through the material available on record.

6. Admittedly the name of present applicant/accused does not transpire in the FIR but subsequently further statement of complainant was recorded with the delay of about eight months and on the basis of CDR collected by the police, the present applicant/accused has been implicated in this case otherwise no evidence has been brought on record. No source has been disclosed by the complainant that who has informed the complainant that the applicant/accused is involved in this case. Mere the allegation against the applicant/accused that he was in contact with the alleged abductee without any material / substance does not mean that he is involved in the commission of offence. Applicant/accused is in Jail, he is no more required for further investigation.

7. In view of above discussion, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out a good case for grant of bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC, hence the applicant/accused namely Sagheer Ahmed son of Muhammad Usman Solangi is granted post arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (One lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Learned trial Court is at liberty to take action against the applicant/accused, if he misuses the concession of bail.

8. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits.

9. The aforesaid bail application stand disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

Irfan/P.A