Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 SHC 1287
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Cr.Bail 1287/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Dost Ali (Applicant)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2024 SHC 1287. In this matter between Cr.Bail 1287/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Dost Ali (Applicant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Cr.Bail 1287/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad CITATION: 2025 SHC HYD 194 PARTIES: Dost Ali (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 17-JAN-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD. Criminal Bail Application No.S- 1287 of 2024
Applicant : Dost Ali son of Baharo Khan Panhwar , through Mr. Shahid Latif Soomro, Advocate. Complainant : Through Altaf Sachal Awan, Advocate.
Respondent : The State Through Ms. Rameshan Oad, A.P.G.
Date of hearing : 17.01.2025 Date of Order : 17.01.2025
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J:- Through the instant bail applicat ion, the applicant/accused above nam ed seek s his pre-arrest bail in Crime No.212 of 20 24, under sections 380 PPC registered at P.S B-Section Nawab Shah, after his bail plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -IV/MCAC, Shaheed Benazirabad vide order dated 23.10.2024. 2. Per learned counsel the applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated by the complainant; that there is five days delays in lodgment of FIR without any plausible explanation; that nothing was recovered from the possession of applicant/accused therefore, false implication of applic ant/accused cannot be ruled out ; that applicant/accused is attending the Court regularly and he has not misused the concession of interim bail . He lastly prayed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.
2
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.G for the State have vehemently opposed for grant of interim pre-arrest bail. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. The case of prosecution is that the supervisor of Disterly department Muhamma d Imran, security guard Sultan Ahmed informed the complainant through cellphone that Dost Ali (applicant/accused) stolen the pipe locks of Cop per Brass from the Disterly department and when at about 0940 hours the complainant went to the Disterly departmen t where on the gate of Disterly the security supervisor Muhammad Imran and Sultan Ahmed disclosed that the Dost Ali Panhwar was seeing at the time of departing from the gate by carrying something in the fold of his shalwar, they captured him and when search was made in presence of the witnesses then they found that the locks were in the fold of his shalwar , as such he has committed this offence. Subsequently, he was fired from his services and ther eafter the FIR was registered. After grant of pre - arrest bail the I.O of the case was called and in support of his contention he has produced the photographs and video clips, USB and so also other documentary evidence wherein apparently it demonstrates that the accused has committed the offence with which he is cha rged. No malafide or ill will has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused in order to falsely involve him in the commission of offence therefore, at this stage he has
3
miserably failed to make out a case for grant of bail in his fa vour. Resultantly, instant bail application is dismissed and the interim pre - arrest bail already granted to applicant/accused vide order dated 03.12.2024, passed by this Court is hereby recalled. 6. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicants on merits.
JUDGE
Ahmed/Pa,