Ahmedo Kandrani vs State

1. NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO,J.:- Applicant/accused Ahmedo Kandrani seeks bail in Crime NO.36/2012 registered at P.S Resaldar for offences under sections 395, 342 and 506/2 PPC against accused on 12.06.2012.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that complainant alongwith is cousins namely Mohammad Nawaz and Shah Mohammad reside in one and same house and said house consists of two rooms. On 06.06.2012 complainant alongwith above named cousins was present at the home, at 7.00 p.m, it is alleged that accused Rabnawaz, Mehmood both sons of Akrro, Allah Bux and Khawand Bux armed with guns, Karim Bux, Ahmedo (present applicant) armed with K.Ks all four sons of Rabnawaz and Hazar Khan S/O Mehmood armed with T.T pistol entered into the house of the complainant and issued threats that they would not be spared if they moved anywhere. As the accused were armed with deadly weapons they confined P.Ws and Mohammad Nawaz and Shah Mohammad in a room and took away by plus cash of Rs.65,000/= and ear-rings of gold worth Rs.27,000/= lying in the box. After one hour, door of the P.Ws was opened and they came out.

3. It is stated that complainant filed application before learned Sessions Judge Kashmore at Kandhkot for seeking directions to the SHO for registration of the case. Such directions were issued and the FIR of the incident was lodged at police station Resaldar against the accused on 12.06.2012 U/S 395, 342 and 506/2 PPC.

4. P.Ws were examined U/S 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation present applicant/accused was arrested on 20.06.2012. On the conclusion of the investigation, challan was submitted against accused Ahmedo U/S 395, 342 and 506/2 PPC. Remaining accused were shown as absconders. Bail application was moved before learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore at Kandhkot, the same was rejected vide order dated 29.06.2012 thereafter, applicant approached to this Court.

5. Mohammad Sadiq Bhangwar, learned advocate for the applicant Ahmedo contended that there is delay of six days in lodging of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished.

6. Complainant after commission of the offence did not approach directly to the SHO concerned. It is further contended that there is enmity between the parties. Prior to this, complainant had lodged another FIR at P.S Resaldar bearing Crime NO.31/2012 U/S 325 PPC against accused. It is further contended that during investigation neither K.K nor the snatched articles were recovered from the possession of the accused and story as narrated by the complainant appears to be unnatural and unbelievable. Both parties are co-villagers. During incident, not a single scratch was caused to the complainant. It is submitted that accused is no more required for investigation. Lastly it is submitted that under the provisions of section 395 PPC punishment of imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than four 4 years and not more than 10 years has been provided. Lastly he submitted that all the male members of family of accused have been involved in this case. In support of contentions, he relied upon a case of Shahzore and another v. The State (2006 YLR 3167 Karachi).

7. Miss Shazia Surahio, State Counsel opposed the application mainly on the ground that name of the applicant/ accused did transpire in the FIR. Applicant had snatched articles of the gold from the house of complainant by chow of force and wrongfully confined P.Ws. She has further submitted that case is fresh one, yet not proceeded.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the relevant record so also the case law.

9. In my considered view, there is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR for which apparently there is no plausible explanation. Learned advocate for the applicant/accused has drawn attention of the Court to another FIR lodged by the complainant against accused at P.S Resaldar vide Crime NO.31/2012 under sections 435, 427, 114, 147, 148, 149, 337-H(2) PPC which shows that there is enmity between the parties. It is the case of the prosecution that seven accused persons, having sophisticated weapons entered into the house of the complainant and took away valuable articles but it is very strange that not a single scratch was caused to the complainant party, nor resistance was offered by the complainant party being the villagers. Learned advocate for the accused has also referred to the addresses of the complainant and accused persons which show that both parties belong to one and same village. Section 395, PPC provides that whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall nor be less than four years nor more than ten years and shall also be liable to fine. The sentence not less than four years was incorporated by Ordinance III of 1980 on 3rd February, 1980 which makes the intention of the legislature very clear that when the case is registered under section 395, PPC the Court cannot award sentence less than four years and can not award sentence more than ten years.

10. For the above stated reasons, while relying upon above cited authority, I hold that prima facie case of applicant/accused requires further inquiry as contemplated in subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/= and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

11. Needless to observe that above observations are tentative in nature and will not influence the trial Court in any manner while deciding the case.