2017 PLP 321 (YLRN)

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.

Through captioned post arrest bail application, applicant Mir Hassan Brohi has impugned order dated 22.06.2015, passed by the Court of learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNS, Khairpur, whereby his earlier bail application was dismissed.

2. Relevant facts spelt out from instant bail application are that on 21.07.2013, complainant impounded Truck No.C-3804 and recovered 64 bags of Poppy weighing 40 mounds and applicant was apprehended along with driver at the spot, hence instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant is a labourer and he took lift from main accused; that neither applicant is co-driver nor cleaner of the said Truck and he was merely available at the spot; that applicant is behind the bars from the day of his arrest but prosecution has failed to conclude the trial; that applicant has no previous criminal record; that applicant is sole earning member of his family, while his old mother has expired during his detention and his father is also seriously sick and bed riddle and entire family is seriously suffering for their livelihood.

4. While controverting the above submissions, learned APG contended that applicant was apprehended at the spot along with truck driver as such he could not claim his innocence.

5. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record minutely.

6. Perusal of FIR, Roznamcha Entry, Mashirnamas of arrest and recovery and Challan emanate that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant as neither he is owner nor co-driver or cleaner of the said truck and his mere presence at the relevant time at the truck requires serious consideration. Indeed, applicant was apprehended on 22.07.2013 and since then he is behind the bars and prosecution has failed to examine a single witness during the period of 2 years and 5 months to substantiate the charge against the applicant. Admittedly, all PWs are police officials and it was not a difficult task for the prosecution to procure attendance of the complainant and one mashir and examine them before the trial Court. Conversely, the unnecessary delay reflects that complainant is not interested to proceed with the case and merely interested to keep the applicant behind the bars. After completion of investigation, Challan has been submitted and charge has also been framed and applicant is no more required further for investigation, thus further detention of applicant will not serve any useful purpose. There is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence as all PWs are officials. Applicant never remained involved in any criminal case nor was convicted for any offence. It is well settled that while dealing with the question of bail, the Court should examine the entire circumstances of the case tentatively irrespective of the sensitivity and heinousness of the crime and bail should not be withheld as a matter of punishment.

7. Considering the above circumstances, applicant has succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as envisaged in section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently, applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.100,000/- each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

8. The observation made above are tentative in nature and learned trial Court shall decided the case strictly on merits. HBT/M-20/Sindh Bail granted.