ALOO Versus State

ORDER

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.--- Through captioned pre-arrest bail application, applicant Aloo Machi son of Ali Muhammad has impugned order dated 14.03.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Thatta, whereby his earlier bail application was declined.

2. Brief facts in nutshell are that complainant Mian Mohsin Raza reported that he owns agricultural land, where he has established three fish ponds and has deputed Uris Mallah and Karo Mallah to look after his fish ponds. Complainant asked Uris Mallah for selling the fish, who settled Rs.500/- per mound as labour charges for catching fish from ponds. On 24.02.2016,he along with Sultan Pathan, was available at the ponds when 130 fishes were caught and he asked Uris to hire Suzuki for transportation to Thatta market, and left for his house. On 25.02.2016 at 09.00 a.m., he reached at the ponds and noticed that fish was not available there. He made calls to Uris, Aloo and Hanif through mobile phone but they did not respond him, hence instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant crime by complainant due to ulterior motives; that prosecution has concluded its evidence and after recording statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C., now main case is fixed for final arguments on 28.10.2016; that applicant has been appearing before the trial Court, hence instant bail may be confirmed.

4. Learned APG considering the above circumstances, has extended no objection.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which emanate that there is no direct evidence of commission of theft of fish against the applicant, however, prosecution has already concluded its evidence and statement of accused has already been recorded by learned trial Court and now the case is fixed for final arguments on 28.10.2016, hence let the learned trial Court to decide the case on merits. Admittedly, applicant has been appearing before the trial Court regularly and did not frustrate the trial. Considering the above circumstances the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicant vide order dated 04.06.2016, is confirmed on same terms and conditions, and applicant is directed to appear before the learned trial Court regularly.

WA/A-162/Sindh Bail confirmed.