ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Bail Application No.846 of 2015

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF JUDGE(S)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For hearing

--------------

03.08.2015

Mr. Jamroz Khan Afridi, advocate for applicant

Mr. Zafar Ahmad Khan, Addl: P.G. Sindh

--------------------------------------

Applicant/accused Umar Farooq seeks bail in Crime No.119/2015, registered under sections 392/34 PPC, at police station Sharafi Goth, Karachi.

Brief facts of the prosecution as disclosed in the F.I.R. are that on 20.05.2015 at 0400 hours complainant lodged F.I.R., alleging therein that on 14.02.2015 at 0400 hours he was sleeping in his house with his family members, his door was knocked, complainant opened the door, four persons armed with weapons entered into the house, from their appearance they looked as Pathans, one of them had muffled his face. All the family members were pushed in a room and culprits took away cash of Rs.340,000/-, 16 wrist watches, 9 mobile phones, one 30 bore licensed pistol and ornaments of gold weighing 17 tolas. Complainant made efforts to know the names of the culprits and in the F.I.R. he has suspected applicant/accused to be involved in the incident. F.I.R. was recorded under section 392/34 PPC.

Applicant/accused was arrested on 21.05.2015. During his interrogation on his pointation on 24.05.2015 two mobile sets were recovered by the police. After usual investigation challan was submitted against the accused under the above referred sections.

Bail application was moved on behalf of applicant/accused before learned IV^th Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, the same was rejected by him vide order dated 24.06.2015. Thereafter, applicant/accused approached this Court.

Mr. Jamroz Khan Afridi, learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that incident took place on 14.02.2015 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 20.05.2015 without sufficient explanation, name of the applicant/accused does not transpire in the F.I.R. and after his arrest no identification parade was held. He has further contended that identification of two mobile sets was not held. He lastly contended that accused is in continuous custody since 21.05.2015, yet charge has not been framed and the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. In support of his contentions he relied upon the case of JAMSHAID ASMAT alias SHEEDU versus THE STATE and others (2011 SCMR 1405).

Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh argued that delay in lodging of F.I.R. would not be beneficial circumstance to the applicant/accused in this case as name of applicant/accused does not transpire in the F.I.R. He has argued that two mobile sets were recovered from applicant/accused on his pointation, sufficient material has been collected against him during investigation which connects him in this case. He has opposed the bail application.

I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused Umar Farooq for the reasons that incident had occurred on 14.02.2015 at 0400 hours and F.I.R. was lodged on 20.05.2015 at 0400 hours in which applicant/accused has been suspected to be one of the culprits of the incident. Delay in lodging of F.I.R. apparently has not been satisfactorily explained. Complainant has not mentioned in the F.I.R. the particulars/numbers of the mobile sets. After recovery of two mobile sets from applicant/accused no identification parade was held. Applicant/accused is in custody since 21.05.2015 yet there is no progress in the trial. Prima facie, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed the alleged offence but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt. While relying upon the above cited authority, concession of bail is granted to applicant/accused Umar Farooq subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Needless to mention here that the above observations are tentative in nature, the same shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant/accused on merits.

JUDGE

Gulsher/PA