1994 PLP 865 (MLD)

This bail application has been filed on behalf of Abdul Rasheed son of Bagh Buriro who has been challaned for offence under sections 457 & 380, P.P.C. and section 14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance being Crime No.84/93 of Police Station Thul, District Jaccobabad. The bail application was filed on behalf of the present applicant before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaccobabad but the same was rejected. Hence the applicant has filed this application before this Court. The brief facts as alleged in the F.I.R. are that on 23-7-1993 at about 11-45 p.m. complainant Abdul Khalik Buriro lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Thul wherein he stated that on 28-6-1993 he went to sleep and when he woke up on 29-6-1993 in the morning time he found an aperture in the wall of the room and found that some household articles including a box were missing from the room. He informed the prosecution witnesses and he alongwith the witnesses tracked the footprints of four persons which led them to the house of one Raboo Buriro where they met Raboo, present applicant Abdul Rashid, Abdul Latif and Dharoo. The complainant informed them about the theft from his house and it is alleged by him in the F.I.R. that all of them confessed their guilt that they have committed the theft and they would return him the theft property after 2/3 days. The complainant party went on approaching accused Raboo but he kept him on hopes and ultimately did not return the property. As such the complainant filed the report with the police. The total value of the stolen property as mentioned in the F.I.R. is Rs.3,

800. The police after usual investigation challaned the accused in the Court of learned S.D.M. Thul. A bail application was moved before the learned S.D.M. Thul but the same was rejected and as such the bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaccobabad which was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 6-11-1993. The main contentions raised by the learned counsel of the applicant are that the F.I.R. in this case has been lodged after a great delay of 24 days for which, according to him, no proper explanation has been furnished by the first informant. He has further contended that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. According to him there is evidence of extra-judicial confession given jointly by four persons which is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that according to the prosecution case a tape-recorder is alleged to have been recovered from the applicant. According to him no details have been mentioned in the F.I.R. so far the tape-recorder is concerned. As such it cannot. be said at this stage that the tape-recorder which is commonly possessed nowadays by every one is necessarily a property of theft. Learned counsel for the State has conceded that there is no eye witness in this case and that the F.I.R. in this case has been lodged after great delay of 24 days for which sufficient explanation has not been furnished by the complainant party. As such the case of the applicant requires further inquiry. Learned counsel for the State has stated that so far as the recovery of the tape recorder is concerned it also requires further inquiry and as such he has no objection if the bail is granted to the applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the entire material which has been placed before me and on the basis of tentative assessment of the evidence I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail. As such I direct the applicant to be released on bail by furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, if at any sage any incriminating evidence comes on record against the applicant, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. I had granted bail to the applicant by a short order on 1.6-12-1993 and these are the reasons for the same. N.H.Q./A-1432/K Bail allowed