2002 PLP 1392 (MLD)

Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui for the State. Applicant Khawand Bux is facing trial in Sessions Case No. 199 of 2001 for an offence under sections 392 and 506/2, P.P.C. in Crime No. 17 of 2001 registered at Police Station Sarhad. The bail application moved in the trial Court having been dismissed on 19‑10‑2001 by the learned I‑Additional Sessions Judge. Ghotki, the applicant has moved the similar prayer in this Court. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29‑3‑2001 complainant Allah Warayo lodged his F.I.R. stating therein that he is working as Journalist in Daily Kawish. On the day of incident viz. 28‑3‑2001 in the evening he alongwith his friends namely imdad Ali Dharejo and Muhammad Saifal Abbasi proceeded to OGDC to their friends on the car of Imdad Ali Dharejo having Car No.LOS‑3111 for the purpose to have dinner. Ghulam Rasool was driving the said car. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that after having dinner, they were returning to Ghotki and when at 10‑30 p.m. they reached on National Highway and .crossed Ahmed Ghee Police Picket and covered some distance they saw four culprits having weapons emerging on the road whose faces were open. The culprits extended 6gnal to the complainant party and under the fear of weapons the vehicle was stopped and on the basis of headlights the complainant party identified the culprits to be Qurban Lakho armed with‑‑Lathi. Asghar alias Ajjo armed with rifle. Khawand Bux Gadani applicant armed with gun and Akbar Dharejo armed with, pistol. At that moment, the said culprits encircled the complainant and roped them from the road and snatched a cash of Rs.250. Seiko‑5 wrist-watch from complainant and also removed his college identity card and cash of Rs.150 and newspaper identity card from witness Muhammad Saifal and cash of Rs.200 and a Seiko‑5 wrist‑watch from victim imdad Ali Dharejo and they were hostage for‑half an hour and thereafter the culprits went away towards Railway Crossing. The complainant came at Ghotki and tried to inform the facts of incident to his Editor at Head Office. Hyderabad but due to non‑availability the complainant intimated the facts on the next day who informed him about the incident and on the directions of the Editor the complainant lodged his report with Police Station Sarhad. After due investigation of the case, accused Qurban Ali was arrested and a lathi, Press Card, Cash of Rs.550 and a card of Degree College was recovered whereas the applicant and the other co- accused were shown as Absconder in the charge‑sheet which was filed on 24‑7‑2001. The trial Court issued the process against the absconding accused and `ultimately the present applicant/accused surrendered himself in the trial Court on 7‑8‑2001 and thereafter bail application on his behalf was moved which was dismissed on 19‑1‑2000 by the learned I‑Additional Sessions Judge, Ghotki. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that there is inordinate delay "in lodging of the F.I.R. and no proper explanation has been mentioned while‑ recording the F. I. R. The learned counsel that there is enmity between the complainant and the accused party on agricultural land further urges it. The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the applicant/accused being law‑abiding citizen has surrendered himself in the trial Court voluntarily. Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Korai has relied upon the case of Sang Ali alias Ghulam Sarwar v. The State (1987 PCr. LJ 1610), Muhammad Asif Mumtaz v. The State (1999 PCr. LJ 283), Rafique Ahmed v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 994), Muhammad Yasin v. The State (1996 PCr.L1 1777) and Maqbool Hussain v. The State (1996 PCr. LJ 54). Conversely, Mr. Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui, learned State Counsel, has proposed the grant of bail on the ground that the name of the applicant alongwith other co‑accused and the manner in which the culprits committed the offence is narrated in the F.I.R. The co‑accused was arrested during the course of investigation and a Press Card, cash of Rs.550 and Identity Card of Degree College were recovered from him which reflects that the commission of offence has taken place and the applicant/accused had taken an active part in the commission of offence. The delay in lodging of the F.I.R. is explained by the complainant in the F.I.R. that his Editor was not available on the, day of incident. On the next day the facts of the incident were communicated to him who directed to lodge the F. I. R. The learned State Counsel further urged that voluntary appearance does not absolve the applicant/accused from the charges. I have gone through the record placed by the learned counsel for the parties and the case‑law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is obvious that the complainant and witnesses have fully implicated the applicant/accused in F.I.R. as well as in 161, Cr.P.C. statements. The case‑law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is not helpful as the facts and circumstances of the same are quite different and distinguishable from the case in hand. The F.I.R. of this case was recorded on 29‑3‑1991 and the challan was filed in the Court having jurisdiction on 27‑4‑2001 and the applicant/accused surrendered himself on 7‑8‑2001 and the trial Court had issued the non‑bailable warrants against him from time to time and by putting appearance after delay of about four months cannot be considered as a valid ground for the grant of bail when there is sufficient evidence available on record against the applicant/accused as well as against the co‑accused. Resultantly, the applicant/accused is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage and the bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./K‑52/K Bail application dismissed.