Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4797 = 2026 SLD 4797 = 2025 PLJ 248
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Crl. B. Appln. Nos. S-1302 & S-1303 of 2023
Presented By: Amjad Ali Sahito, J.
Mr. Rizwan Ali Lashari, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for State. Date of hearing: 9.2.2024.

ATIF--Applicant

VERSUS

STATE--Respondent

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 497

Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860

Section: 381-A , 34

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381-A & 34--Post arrest bail, dismissal of--Allegation of--Theft of vehicle (Rikshaw)--Rikshaw of complainant was stolen by unknown, accused persons and when he saw CCTV Camera he identified accused All along-with co-accused and after his arrest stolen Rikshaw was from recovered from him--No material is placed on record to suggest any enmity of complainant with present applicant--At bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made--Sufficient material is available on record which connects applicant/accused with alleged offence, as such, counsel for applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail in view of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C., resultantly instant bail applications are dismissed.     [Para 6] A Mr. Rizwan Ali Lashari, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for State. Date of hearing: 9.2.2024. Order Through this single order, the captioned criminal bail applications are being disposed of wherein the applicant/accused is the same person who is seeking his post-arrest bail in Crime No. 336 of 2023 as well as in FIR No. 337 of 2023 under sections registered under Sections 381-A, 34, P.P.C. registered at P.S A-Section Tando Allahyar, after his bail pleas were declined by the learned Sessions Judge-I, Tando Allahyar vide separate orders dated 20.11.2023 2.       The facts of the cases are already mentioned in the F.I.Rs and memo of bail applications. Hence need not to reproduce the same hereunder. 3.       Per learned counsel the applicant/accused is innocent has falsely been implicated in this case; that FIR No. 336 of 2023 is delayed about five days and the recovery was effected also with delay of five days; that the second FIR was registered after delay of eight days for which no plausible explanation has been furnished; that applicant/accused is in jail, he is no more required for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register