ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Cr. Bail Appln. No. D-36 of 2012.

Dated                                   order with signature of hon’ble Judge.

1. For orders on office objection as flag A.

2. For order on M.A No.1766/2012.

3. For Katcha Peshi.                                  

11.03.2013.

M/S Abdul Hakeem H. Bijarani and Mohammad Iqbal Mahar, advocates for the applicant.

                        Mr. Athar Abbas Solangi, advocate for the complainant.

                        Miss Shazia Surahio, State Counsel.

======

SYED MOHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH,J.:- Bail has been sought by applicant Sunder Jakhrani, booked in Crime NO.86/2010, registered  at P.S Buxapur, for an offence punishable U/S 302, 363, 148, 149 PPC  r/w section 6 and 7 of ATA.

2.                     Precisely the facts   necessary for decision of instant bail application are that the complainant Haji Noor Mohammad in his FIR lodged  on 24.05.2010 did not implicate the present applicant in the commission of the offence.  The applicant,  per learned counsel for the complainant, has  been subsequently involved  by the prosecution witnesses, however learned counsel for the complainant  pointed out that he is unable to produce any further statement of the complainant.  On the contrary,  leaned counsel for the applicant has produced copies of statement of P.Ws recorded 161 Cr.P.C and it appears that in his statement recorded on 30.06.2010 complainant Haji Mohammad Noor  did not implicate  the present applicant.

3.                    Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Ganj Ali alias Ganj Bux  to whom  identical role has been assigned  was not nominated in the FIR,  has already been granted bail by this Court and keeping in view the rule of consistency the  applicant is also entitled for bail.  It is next contended  that  no incriminating article  has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant and that identification parade of the applicant/accused  was also not held before any  Magistrate, after his arrest.  Learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on the cases reported   as  under:

i. Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another                 (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 241).

ii. Manazar Hussain Shah v. The State (1999 P.Cr.L.J 86).

iii. Mohammad Daud and another v. The State  and another (2008 SCMR 173).

4.                    Admittedly, co-accused Ganj Bux  has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2012 passed in bail application No.D-24/2012 and identical role has been assigned to the present applicant. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant have not been specifically controverted  by the learned advocate for the  complainant, assisted by learned State Counsel.  Consequently,  the bail is hereby granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of  Rs.300,000/= and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.  

5.                     This order is tentative in nature  and the trial Court  may not  be influenced by the above observations.

JUDGE

JUDGE