IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S-324 of 2021

Applicant:          Muhammad Rashid Matro,

Through Mr. Imtiaz Ali Mugheri, Advocate.

Complainant:     Ali Muhammad Brohi,

                          Through Mr. Muhammad Sharif Ghanghro,

State:                 Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G

Date of hearing:                  06-09-2021

Date of Decision:                          06-09-2021

O R D E R

ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, J.-   Through this application, applicant Mohammad Rashid son of Rabnawaz Matro is seeking his admission to post-arrest bail in Crime No.55/2021 of Police Station Ratodero, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420,406,506/2,34.  Earlier, bail plea of the applicant was declined by learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, vide order dated 15.07.2021.

2. The Facts of the case are that on 28.03.2021 complainant Ali Mohammad Brohi lodged the F.I.R at P.S. Ratodero stating therein that applicant/accused entered into a sale agreement with him on the condition that he will hand over four cars viz two Toyota Corolla GLI model 2018 and two cars Toyota Corolla GLI model 2017 to complainant for which he received amount of Rs:60,00,000/- from complainant on 24.01.2021 and the due date to hand over the possession of vehicle was 15.03.2021. On due date complainant contacted with applicant/accused, who sought more time. On 27-03-2021 complainant again contacted with accused, who called complainant at Ratodero bypass to get the possession of vehicle. Complainant along with his witnesses went there, where applicant/accused along with two unknown unidentifiable accused persons reached there. Applicant/accused disclosed one of his companions as his brother. After some gossips complainant demanded the possession of vehicles, on such all the accused persons took out pistols from their folds, pointed on complainant and said if he again demanded the vehicles, he will be murdered. After that all the accused persons went towards Shikarpur on their vehicle. After consulting with triable elders, he lodged the above F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel for applicant/accused contended that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; that there is a delay of more than 24 hours in lodgment of FIR, which has not been explained properly; that the complainant himself has admitted in the F.I.R that he has lodged the same after the consultation with his tribal clan; that from the contents of F.I.R no offence u/s 406 PPC is made out. There is a civil dispute already pending and it is yet to be determined by the trial court after recording the evidence as to whether the provisions of Section 406 or 420 P.P.C attract or not, the case of applicant requires further inquiry as envisaged u/s 497 (2) Cr.P.C; that all the Sections applied in the F.I.R carry punishment less than 10 years as such the case alleged against the applicant does not fall within the provisions of prohibitory clause of Section 497 (1) Cr.P.C; that the complainant has not given any date, time and place where he paid such a huge amount in advance to the applicant without taking any guarantee or agreement. He further submits that though the alleged incident is said to have taken place at busy Hotel but no independent person has been associated to witness the incident, on the contrary the complainant has given close relatives and a friend to be his witnesses; that the prosecution has no incriminating material which is sufficient to connect the applicant with the commission of alleged offence and only bare allegations are leveled against the applicant which require further probe. He further argued that the Section 420 P.P.C attracts which is bailable and will be tried by the trial court. In support of his contentions, he has placed his reliance upon the case law reported as MUHAMMAD AKRAM LONE SAEED Vs. THE STATE (2008 P.Cr.L.J 1351). In the end he has prayed for grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant/accused.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the grant of bail stating that on the ground that the alleged offence is non bailable and there is sufficient evidence against the applicant/accused in shape of agreement, to connect him with the commission of crime. They further argued that dishonesty of the applicant/accused is very much available, as he neither handed over the vehicles for which he entered into agreement nor returned the amount to the complainant, which amounts to misappropriation, hence committed criminal breach of trust. They lastly prayed for the dismissal of bail application.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and learned D.P.G. and have gone through the material available on the record and the police file with their able assistance.

6. Perusal of F.I.R shows that it has been lodged after the delay of about 24 hours, which has not been explained properly. It appears from the contents of F.I.R that no offence U/S 406 PPC is made out, it is the matter of civil nature yet to be determined by the trial court as well as the provisions of Section 406,507 or 420 P.P.C are attracted from the facts of the case or not; moreover the Section 420 P.P.C is bailable and will be tried by the trial court; that all the Sections applied in the F.I.R carry punishment less than 10 years as such the case alleged against the applicant does not fall within the provisions of prohibitory clause of Section 497 (1) Cr.P.C.

7. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of bail and the same is to be decided tentatively. From the tentative assessment of material available on record, it appears that the applicants/accused has made out his case for grant of post arrest bail as envisaged in Subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.   Investigation of the case has been finalized and physical custody of the applicant is no more required to police for the purpose of investigation and in these circumstances continued custody of the applicant in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this juncture.

8. Accordingly, in view of the above position and circumstances, the applicant was granted post arrest bail upon his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two hundred thousand rupees) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court vide short order dated 06.09.2021; these are reasons for the short order.

9. Observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

J U D G E

Abdul Salam/P.A