MST. ANAM D/O WARIS (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

77v /l,ll P E.M T EO@ j* ,1)- Ara

ospr}}qi*Iilfti;. r,,

-, 7 Z>

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Bail Application No. 12025 Mst. Anam D/o Waris Muslim, adult, PresentlY Confined in ludicial CustodY In Women Jail at Karachi ---------------- Applicant / Accusecj

VERSUS

The State Respondent

FIR No. 616/2024 U/s. 381/34 PPC P.S, Gizri, Karachi

BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 497 CR.P.C.

\, HC C (.'

ttg

F.

I

I

l

ts

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Crl. Bail Application No' 430 ot2025 Applicant Mst. Anam through M/s' Azizuliah Kumbhar & Jawld Jabbar Kalochi, advocates

Respondent The State Mr. Qamaruddin Nohri, DeputY Prosecutor General

Complainant Rahui RaY through N&. Muhammad AYoub Chaniho, advocate.

Date of hearing 17h}./ratch,20'25 17rt, N{arch. 2025 Date of Order

ORDER

has filed the present |an Ali ]unejo, I.- Th" applicant/accused critrrinal bail application seeking post-arrest bail in connection under with FIR No.616 of 2024, registered at P'S' Gizri' Karachi' Sectionsgsl,/g4,ofthePakistanPenalCode(PPC).lnitially,the Court' applicant/accused approached the learned Sessions was dismissed through Bail Application No'171 /20'25' wfudn t{( of leamed Ist vide Order dafed: ?2-01"2024 passed by the Court _t

F-

Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South ' application !r 2 The facts relevant to the present criminal bail are as follows:

Rai' tesiding at House "I"he complainanl namely Rahul No, 2 afld rilwting a business' hireil tuto I maids

>7ct

t2l

on77.72.2024forhouseholdworka{tettheyagreeilto the complainant left prooifu their CNICs' On74'12'2024' a uedding itlslamabail' locking the upperfloor roonr fot parents' house' The maids and dtopping his wife at her coming' Upon workeil untitTS-72'2024but then stopped hotns' the rcturning on79'72-2024 at around 2200 tampercd zoith anil coutplainant found the room lock included60 tolas of iliscooereil a burglary' Stolen itans gotd iezaehy) ttuo totisftaatches' bne Vetsace anil PI<R' andS'000 US Tagues,ptize bonils wotth 350'000 The complainant ilollars 200 bonds of rnorth Rs'200'000/'' L5' anil the Cti'ne reported the inciilent to police helpline legal Scene llnit (CStl) inspected the scene' He now seelcs maids for theft and act:ion against the tttso unidentified tanpeing toith tlrc lock"' '

3.Thelearnedcounselfortlreapplicanthasarguedthatthe falsely implicated in the Applicant is innocent and has been theft' *ittt no direct evidence linking therri to the alleged "u*, is ongoing' ar-rd the He further contends that the investigaton the authorities' He argues Applicant has cooperated fully with the commurrity and no that the Applicant has deep roots in abide by urry conditions criminal record, and is willing to imposed by the court. He also contends *": *: allegations are based on circumstantial evidence' and the Applicant's continueddetentionisunnecessaryandpunitive.Hepraysfor principle ot"ball' not iail"' the $ant o{ bail, emphasizing the

I

I

andassuresthecourto{theApplican{savailabilityfortrial.

i/

>\o

I$I

I

4.The Learned Counsel for the Complainant vehement$ of the opposes tire bail application, emphasizing the seriousness offmse, which involves the theft d high-vaiue items' inciuding gold jewelry, luxury watches, and cash, warranting strict judicial scrutiny. He argues that granting bail poses a significant risk of evidence tampering and witness intimidation' potentially jeopardizing the ongoing investigation' Given the severe penalties associated with the offense, tirere is a strong likelihood of absconding, which could undermine the judicial process. He higtrlights that the circumstantial evidence' particularly *re recovery of Rs' 4,00,000 / - trom the Applicant' strong\r implicates their involvement despite the absence of direct evidence. Fulthermore, he asserts that releasing ttie' Applicant at this stage could elode public confidence in the judicial system, especially when the investigation is incomplete' He disputes the defense's contention that the offense Ialls under Section 411, PPC, arguing that Section 381' PPC is equally applicable, and such determinatici'ns should be left for trial. Moreover, he contends that continued detention will cause lt' no prejudice to the Applicant, as the trial can be expedited'

F

u- Therefore, in light of the gravitv of the pffense' potential for o obstruction of justice, and risk of flight, he prays for the ;::,i dismissal of the bail application, urgrng the court to prioritize l

justice over leniency.

5.The learned DPG contends that the Applicant is directly involved in a serious offense involving theft of high-value items, including gold iewelr-v, watches, and caslu which warrants strict scrutiny. He further, contends that the Applicant's release on bail could jeopardize the ongoing

2ql

I4.l

investigation, as there ts a risk of tampering "rith evidence cl irLfluencing wibresses. and the potenriar r.,. in:'il;#,i:T;Xl ::::.il: serious penalties involved, justify the denial of bai1. He also contonds that the circu the Apprican, *;*#'T:1,:H;, ::::#:rr# confidence in the judicial process. U" p*yg f*tf,e dismissal of the bail application, asse necessary to ensure

rffI::"r,"1'#ffi::"#j activity. i

6.I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the leamed counsel for the Applicant/Accused as welj as the leamed Additional prosecutor General and counsel for complainant Additionally, I have *"r*o the material available on record wi keeping rn,riew Ifi;I1"JrTtl::X;. H"; such assessment,""the following findings are made: The j-- Applicant is not named tJ- in the FI& which gainst rwo uni denrifi"a a rr,"i ar - ff ,;;"" ; J"rLT"r: establish any direct link between the Applicant and the aileged theft. No identification parade rras condi.rcted to comect the Applicant with the crime. The absence of such a crifical step in the investigation weakens the prosecution,s case against the Appiicant Although the Crime Scene Uirit (CSU) visited the complainant,s house and collected evidence, the fingerprints the Applicant were not ( I - of rrom the crime scene. the prosecurion,s claim ^H;#;;:;;:]i :T:ffi] or *-," appii"uo;;';;.r"*"nt. witness has come forward No to state that he saw the Applicant

2-q L

t5l

i

I

The prosecution'slcase retiel entirltf committing the burglary' at the which is yet to be proved bY thl Prosecution on recovery, debatable quastion whether the ;;":, or*. ,, is a higruy the committed by the Applicant falls within offense allegedly ambitofSection3Sl,PPCorSection4\l,PPC.Theprosecution recovery of Rs' 4'00'000/- from the *, .r, alleged the falls under Sectron 411' PPC' This Applicant, which, at most' does not falI within the plohibitory clause of Section offence the Applicant is entitled to bail under 497$), C:.P.C' Therefore' the 1aw.

findings' the Applicant is

7.In light of the aforementioned the to the grant of baii' In similar circumstances' clearly entitled Court granted bail to the accused in the Honourabie Supreine another (PLD Tatsteer o' The State' and "un "tmul,,mmad 733)'wherein it was gbserved thar "Nore 2077 Suqane Court to that the lffing of the motorbike and no eoidence htzs witnesseil

the iniertion of section is aaailable on tecord, therefore, ffict also speaks mala fi:ie of nat only t'uriustifiedbut O, ,.r.r. appeats in the peculiar circumstances oY tln '\''^tl' \r! the police' INhether seatio-n 381-A' P'P'C' or i t", pt'osecated under prtl,tion , is liable to be \ to which the Tial Court shall is a dcbatable question

411. P.P.C.,

and when none of ;" ;" ,j'on id"otion' being a bordeilite case thetwooffences'arepunishableulithimpris'onmentfallingwithilt to timb of section of 497' Cr'P'C' then' refusing the prohlbitory highly urlustifed" ' grantbail to the petitioner toouldbe is outlined here-in-above' the Applicant 8. For the reasors to furnishing a bail bond in the I granted Post-a$est bail subiect like amount to the l* of Bs. 200,000/- with one surety in the

w3

satisfaction of the trial Court. It is expresslv clarified that the

observations and conclusions rendered in this order are strictly'

limited to the disposal of the Present bail application and do not constitute an opirdon o4 the merits of the case' These remarks shall not be interpreted as prejudicilg the rights' claims, or defenses of either pafiy - prosecution or defense - during the trial proceedings. The trial Court shall adjudicate the matter independently, uninfluenced by *y findings articulated herein, and solely based on evidence adduced and legal principles applicable at the appropriate stage' !r- r] ifil, k rflc H|GH coua" (Eirlr rt u TO rf

UCt REGISTRAR (COFYINGI

16 -og.' 7'o 1-j

COPY APPTIED FOR O

fE€5 ESTIMAIEO ON h T'TIMATEO fEES DE ,or,rao o" &

COPY MADE READY/CIRTIFIED ON

t, -- sIAMP SUPPTIED ON

COPY OELIVTREO ON

PAG E: ri-:

URGTIU/NORMAL f I,ES:

d? R5:

coPYYltlc f PA'E:

toi/ t.

COMPAqI PA'!: R9:

TOTAL: or, tO"/ sll t"/

COMPA

I O,rrCt

VC r l{t GrsI &AR ia Lr pyiNal