28/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Bail Application No. S- 358 of 2021
Applicant : Jahangeer Bozdar s/o Khair Muhammad, through Mr. Shabbir Ali Bozdar, advocate
Complainant : Wazeer Ahmed Abro s/o Jhangal
Respondent : The State, through Mr. Syed Sardar Ali Shah,
Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh
Date of hearing : 16.08.2021
Date of order : 16.08.2021
---------------
ORDER
---------------
ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J:- Applicant/accused Jahangeer Bozdar being abortive to get the concession of post-arrest bail from the Court of IV- Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo in Sessions Case No. 107 of 2021, vide order dated 22.05.2021, through this application seeks the same concession from this Court in Crime/FIR No. 15 of 2021, registered under sections 459, P.P.C. at Police Station Mirpur Mathelo.
2. Precise allegations against the applicant, as per the FIR, are that on 25.01.2021 at 02:30 a.m., at the house of Jahangeer Jahanzaib, the cousin of the complainant, he along with two unknown accused persons, while committing lurking house-trespass cause lathi below to Jahangeer Jahanzaib and on the cries of complainant and P.Ws he run away with stolen properties viz. one electric motor, one smart watch, one DVD player, for which applicant, along with two other co-accused, was booked in the FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and has committed no offence whatsoever as alleged by the complainant; that the applicant was arrested on the very day near from the house of complainant, as a quarrel was taken place between the applicant and the complainant, who called the police and got the applicant arrested; that there is implausible delay of 17 hours in lodgment of the FIR; that the injuries allegedly caused to injured as per MLC are Ghayr-i-Jaifah Damiyah, which is non-cognizable and punishable for imprisonment of one year; that nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant and the alleged recovery has been foisted upon him; that the allegations against the applicant are absurd and baseless and no reasonable grounds exists to believe that he has committed the alleged offence; as such, he is entitled for the concession of bail on the ground of further inquiry. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 733),
Qurban Ali v. The State and others (2017 SCMR 279), Jamsher Mazari v. The State (2009 YLR 387), Shammon alias Samandar v. The State (2007 MLD 294) and Shoukat v. The State (2007 P CR. L J 2034).
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the instant application on the grounds that the applicant is nominated in the FIR by name and the recovery of the article has been effected from him; that no previous enmity exists between the applicant and the complainant; that the eye-witnesses in their statements have fully connected the applicant with the commission of alleged offence; that the alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. as the offence under section 459 P.P.C. is punishable for imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years; that the applicant is a habitual offender and has earlier involved in at least three cases registered at P.S. Jarwar, District Ghotki viz. (1) Crime No. 2/2020, under section 459 & 380, P.P.C. (2) Crime No. 3/2020, under section 457 & 380, P.P.C. and (3) Crime No. 4/2020, under section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and since no case of further inquiry has been made out, the applicant is not entitled for the concession of bail. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied on the case of Insaf and another v. The State (2021 YLR 338), Ayaz Ali v. The State (2021 MLD 669) and Muhammad Kamran Bhatti v. The State (2018 YLR 1554).
5. Learned D.P.G has adopted the argument of learned counsel for the complainant.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their assistance.
7. The applicant is confined in judicial custody since 04.02.2021 and the police has submitted challan against him; as such, he is not required for further investigation. The complainant has nominated the applicant specifically in the FIR but he has nowhere stated that the applicant was known to him intimately. The complainant has lodged the FIR after delay of 17 hours, if he knew the applicant; he should have gone to police station immediately to lodge the FIR. As per FIR, complainant, his cousin Abdul Kareem, injured Jahanzaib Jahangeer and other family members were present in the house on the night of incident, but difficult to understand that the applicant succeeded to ran away along with alleged stolen articles and they did not chase and held him. As per memo of arrest and recovery, the applicant was arrested from Bye-Pass, near Star Petrol Pump, along with stolen articles; however, no explanation is available with prosecution as to how the applicant reached the place of arrest along with stolen articles. In these circumstances, the case against the applicant calls for further enquiry as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr. P.C. The argument that the applicant has been involved in three other cases would not come in the way of grant bail so long as there is nothing on the record to show that he has been convicted in any one of them. I; therefore, admit the applicant to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and P.R. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant/accused on merits. However, in case the applicant misuses the concession of bail in any manner, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the same after giving him notice, in accordance with law.
9. Above are the reasons of my short order dated 16.08.2021.
JUDGE.
