Cr.Bail 23/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana

Sindh High Court · 2025 · Before Amjad Ali Sahito

Through instant criminal bail application, applicant/accused Arz Mohammad seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.132/2023, registered at Police Station A-Section Thull, under Sections 395, 397, 384, 386, 120-B, 337-A(iii), 35 P.P.C, read with Section 6(2)(k)/7, ATA. Prior to this, he filed such application but the same was turned down by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur vide order dated 08.04.2025, hence he has filed instant criminal bail application. 2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to business rivalry. It is contended that there is an unexplained delay of approximately five days in the lodging of the F.I.R, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. Although the applicant has been assigned a specific role in the F.I.R, the Investigating Officer (I.O.), in the police report filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C., has disclosed that the applicant had previously been engaged in business with the complainant by working at his franchise. Subsequently, the applicant established his own independent franchise, which allegedly displeased the complainant. It is further submitted that when six unidentified persons committed the offence, the complainant, harboring resentment, falsely implicated the applicant in the case. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to page No. 65 of the case file, which contains a show cause notice issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.), Jacobabad, to the concerned police officials for their failure to arrest the actual culprits involved in the incident. In light of the foregoing, learned counsel has prayed for the grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant. 4. Conversely, Mr. Athar Abbas Solangi, learned counsel for the complainant, has filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. He, along with the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, has vehemently opposed the instant bail application. Mr. Solangi has argued that the applicant is specifically named in the F.I.R. with a defined role in the commission of the offence. He has further submitted that the trial court may be directed to record the statements of the complainant party, whereafter the applicant may, if so advised, file a fresh bail application before the trial court. 5. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position that an F.I.R. does not constitute conclusive proof of the truth of the allegations contained therein. In the present case, although the applicant is named in the F.I.R. with a specific role, there exists a delay of five days in lodging the same, for which no cogent or plausible explanation has been provided by the complainant. During the course of investigation, the I.O.

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…