| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2346 2026 SLD 2346 = 2026 MLD 577 |
Sindh High Court, Larkana Bench
Criminal Bail Application No. S-47 of 2025, 1st Criminal Bail Applications Nos. S-72 and S-125 of 2025, decided on 26th May, 2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J
Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 2009 SC 427 rel. Muhammad Ali Memon and Raham Ali Abro for Applicants (in all three matters). Complainant in person. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.
Criminal Bail Application No. S-47 of 2025, 1st Criminal Bail Applications Nos. S-72 and S-125 of 2025, decided on 26th May, 2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J
Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 2009 SC 427 rel. Muhammad Ali Memon and Raham Ali Abro for Applicants (in all three matters). Complainant in person. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.
NAJEEBULLAH CHACHAR and 2 others---Applicants
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497(2), 498
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 457, 459, 380, 337-F(i), 337-F(v)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 497(2) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 457, 459, 380, 337-F(i) & 337-F(v)---Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house breaking, theft, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghair jaifah hashimah---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they while armed with deadly weapons attacked upon the complainant at a cattle pond, inflicted lathi blows to the complainant on his arm and committed theft of complainant s gold chain and a mobile phone---Admittedly, the incident was said to have occurred on 08.12.2024, whereas FIR was lodged on 28.12.2024 i.e. with delay of 10 days and no plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay---Delay in criminal cases is fatal for the prosecution---Except one accused, no role had been assigned to any of the applicants---However, the injury allegedly attributed to said accused was on non-vital part of his body and had been declared by the Medico-Legal Officer falling under S.337-F(v), P.P.C, carrying punishment of 05 years only---As far as application of S.459, P.P.C, was concerned, the applicants as well as complainant/injured were close relatives inter se, hence, involvement of accused in the odd hours of the night in the house of complainant in view of their close relationship required evidence and it was yet to be proved by the prosecution whether the applicants allegedly had entered into the house of complainant by night in order to commit theft and whilst committing the offence had caused injury to the injured complainant---This was a question which was yet to be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses---Hence, the mandatory requirement of S.459, P.P.C, for joint punishment was yet to be proved by the prosecution after recording its evidence---Case had been challaned and no complaint with regard to misuse of concession of interim pre-arrest bail extended to the applicants earlier had been brought on record---In the…