2013 PLP 1392 (YLR)

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.

Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No.65 of 2012 registered against them at Police Station Radhan Station, District Dadu on 20-8-2012 under sections 392 and 394, P.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. are that on 20-8-2012 complainant along with his brother Ali Murad and relative Ghulam Shabir left home on the motorcycle at 2-30 p.m. reached at link road near Peer Musafir where complainant party saw accused persons namely

1. Niaz Hussain,

2. Sikandar Ali, both sons of Ghulam Rasool, and

3. Mazhar son of Ramzan standing on the road forcibly motorcycle of the complainant was stopped. It is alleged that accused Niaz Hussain snatched chain of gold and cash of Rs.5000, ring of and Nokia Mobile phone from complainant, accused Sikandar also snatched a mobile phone from P.W. Ali Murad. Resistance was offered by complainant party. It is alleged that accused Niaz Hussain caused butt blow to P.W. Ali Murad and he fell down. Accused person ran away while snatching above-mentioned articles from the complainant party. F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Radhan.

3. After usual investigation challan was submitted against the accused persons. Accused Niaz Hussain was arrested. Applicant/accused Mazhar and Sikandar applied for pre-arrest bail. Same was rejected by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu vide his order dated 17-10-2012, thereafter applicants/accused approached this court.

4. Mr. Ghulam Ali A. Samtio, learned counsel for the applicants has mainly contended that complainant Ali Gul, P.W./injured Ali Murad and P.W Zameer Hussain have filed affidavits in which they have stated that culprits had muffled faces at the time of incident hence they could not identify any of them and they have not named the applicants/accused during investigation. Mr. Samtio, submitted that prosecution case is a case of two versions and case is doubtful and benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused even at bail stage. Serious mala fide on the part of police has also been alleged. He has argued that police with mala fide intention named the accused persons in this case. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the case reported as 2011 SCMR 1615.

5. Mr. Qazi Muhammad Bux appearing on behalf of the State recorded no objection.

6. I am inclined to confirm the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants for the reasons that complainant and P.Ws. namely Ali Murad and Zameer Hussain in their affidavits have exonerated the applicants from the commission of the offence. Apparently, there are two versions of the prosecution case, which version is correct is yet to be determined at trial. Doubt in the prosecution case has been created by filing of the affidavits of the complainant party. Benefit of doubt even at bail stage shall go to the accused. Rightly reliance has been placed on above cited authorities. Mala fide has already been alleged against police, therefore, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants is made out. Resultantly, interim bail granted to the applicants is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced by such observations at the time of passing final judgment. MWA/M-4/K Bail confirmed.