IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT

LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 136 of 2024.

Applicant:                   Qabool alias Lamboo, through Mr. Abdul Rehman A. Bhutto, Advocate.

Respondent:                The State, through Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of Hearing:         18.04.2024.

Date of Order:                        18.04.2024.

Date of Reasons:        19.04.2024.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J: Through this application, applicant Qabool alias Lamboo son of Guhram alias Guloo Chhijjan seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No. 01 of 2024, registered at Police Station Miani @ Badani, for offenses punishable under Sections 459 and 382 P.P.C.  His similar request was turned down by learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, vide Order dated 13.02.2024.

            2. Brief facts of the prosecution case have already been mentioned in the impugned order in its para No.2, which are reproduced hereunder:

            “Concisely, allegations as per F.I.R agaisnt the applicant/ accused is that on 15.01.2024, at about 01.00 a.m. (night) he along with other co-accused persons named in F.I.R, duly armed with deadly weapons trespassed into the house of complainant; committed theft of buffaloes and other articles and caused injuries to the complainant.”

            3. The complainant was issued notice; he engaged counsel, but his counsel did not appear today.

            4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned D.P.G appearing for the State and perused the material available on record.  After scanning available record in the light of arguments advanced by learned counsels, I have observed as under: -

(a) Admittedly, there is delay of two-days in registration of the F.I.R without furnishing plausible and satisfactory explanation. As per well-settled law, the delay in reporting the matter to police is always considered to be fatal for the prosecution, because the delay is falling within the ambit of deliberation and afterthought.

(b) The, name of applicant does not find place in the F.I.R.

(c) The applicant was involved in this case on the basis of 161 Cr.P.C statements of prosecution witnesses recorded on the same day of registration of the FIR.

(d) It is astonishing and does not appeal to a prudent mind that when the witnesses identified the applicant to be accused, then why they did not disclose his name to complainant at the time of registration of FIR.

(e) On score of these two grounds only, i.e. firstly the delayed FIR and secondly not naming the applicant in FIR, the case against applicant requires further probe as contemplated by Subsection (2) of Section 497 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

(f) Besides above, there is no recovery of any stolen article from possession of applicant, though he remained under police custody for sufficient time.

(g) The applicant has been in jail since date of his arrest i.e. 21.01.2024 and challan of the case has been filed; as such he is no more required for the purpose of investigation. In these circumstances continuous custody of the applicant in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this juncture.

(h) The learned D.P.G. extended no objection to grant of bail in favour of the applicant.  

            5. In view of above observation, there appear sufficient grounds for further inquiry into guilt of the applicant. As such, bail application in hands was allowed vide short Order dated 18.04.2024, whereby the applicant was allowed bail subject to furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) to satisfaction of learned trial Court. These are reasons for short order.

            6. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that, observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice case of either party at trial.

                                                       Judge

Ansari