ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. 602 of 2009.

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For orders on MA No. 1922/2009.

3. For hearing.

11.01.2010.

                        Mr. Shamasuddin Abbasi, Advocate for applicant.

                        Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, State counsel.

~~~~

                        F.I.R No. 35/2009, was registered with P.S Arija, on 18.06.2009, at 2040 hours, for offence alleged to have occurred on 17.6.2009, at 2.00 a.m. It was stated by the complainant that he and his family members were sleeping inside their house, when they were woken up by barking of dogs. When he woke up, he discovered that burglary was caused to the eastern side of the wall of the house and he saw eight persons, whom he identified in the F.I.R and other two persons whom he could identify by face, were inside the house with guns in their hands. The accused persons aimed their weapons. One of the accused, namely, Niaz took keys of the safe from pocket of shirt of complainant; opened the safe and then took cash, gold ornaments and mobile. He also took gun of the brother of the complainant, as well as keys of the motorcycle, which motorcycle was also taken away by them.  After the burglars left the premises, cries were raised.  Then, after consultation of a nekmard F.I.R was registered.

                        Bail application was filed in the Court below and the Court below vide order dated 09.10.2009, rejected the bail application for the reasons that after arrest of the present applicant, repeater was recovered from him, so also the allegedly robbed article, namely, gold locket.

                        Learned counsel for the applicant made the following submissions: -

(i) Although the incident is alleged to have occurred on 17.6.2009, at 2.00 a.m., F.I.R was lodged on 18.6.2009, at 2040 hours, and that too after consultation with the nekmard. There has been old enmity.

(ii) No specific role has been ascribed to the applicant in the F.I.R. 

(iii) Bail has been granted to co-accused Abdul Hameed and role of the applicant is identical to that of Abdul Hameed.

(iv) Applicant was arrested on 25.6.2009, and recovery is stated to have taken place on 08.07.2009. This creates doubt.

(v) The applicant has been in continuous custody since his arrest.

                        Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that applicant is directly nominated and implicated in the F.I.R and specific role has been assigned to him. He further submitted that crime weapon has been recovered, so also stolen property.

                        I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.

                        The applicant is directly nominated in the F.I.R, as holding a repeater. The repeater has been recovered from the applicant. However, in the F.I.R there is no report that any fire was made from the repeater. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been acquitted vide order dated 23.11.2009, for an offence punishable under section 13 (e) of Arms Ordinance, in connection with the same repeater, therefore, recovery of the repeater does not really prove in anything.

                        The second item is the recovery of one gold ornament from possession of the present applicant. No statement of any witness has been recorded by the police identifying the gold ornament alleged to have been recovered. It seems rather odd that the applicant was arrested on 25.6.2009, and then recovery was affected on 08.07.2009. All these make it a case of further enquiry.

                        Learned counsel for the applicant submitted his case is identical to that of Abdul Hameed, who has been granted bail. The learned Court below has held the case to be distinguishable and in my view it is so, because nothing is stated to have been recovered from Abdul Hameed.

                        Be that as it may, since the case is of further enquiry, this bail application is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Three lacs) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

                        The bail application stands disposed of.

                                                                                                            Judge