Sindh High Court
Manthar Ali Lashari (Applicant) VS Engineer @ Jajo & Others (Respondent)
- Case
- Cr.Tran 14/2025
- Type
- Criminal Appellate Jurisdictions
- Judge
- Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
- Length
- 3 pages
Full judgment
Official copyIN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail. Appln. No.S-74 of 2025 Crl. Transfer Appln. No.S-14 of 2025
DATE OF ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE.
HEARING
1.For orders on O/objection at flag-A.
2.For hearing of post-arrest bail.
Mr. Yameen Ali Khoso, Advocate for applicant in Crl. Tr. Application No.S-14 of 2025.
Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Shaikh, Advocate for applicant in Crl. Bail Application No.S-74 of 2025
Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Shaikh, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
JAWAD AKBAR SARWANA, J.: The counsel for the applicant/complainant has submitted that on account of threat to life and liberty to the applicant/complainant, and given the background of the crime involved in the Sessions Case No.946 of 2024 currently pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro (Re: Stvs Engineer & Others) arising from Crime No.175/2024 of PS Kandiaro, involving five persons being severely injured, three accused in custody in Prison and six accused having been declared as proclaimed absconders, the applicant/complainant filed with the District Sessions Court at Naushahro Feroze Criminal Transfer Application No.64/2024 for transfer of the Session Case from Kandiaro to any other Court. The applicant/complainant counsel submitted that these accused persons, who are also absconders, are from Kandiaro City, and he fears for his life and liberty as and when the appellant/complainant and the witnesses proceed to Kandiaro to attend hearings in the trial. Yet the District Sessions Court at Naushahro Feroze dismissed the Applicant/Complainant’s Transfer Application vide Order dated 23.12.2024, hence this application.
2.Counsel for respondents/accused contends that, in fact, the complainant, his witnesses and accused persons are from the same Taluka. He relies on his own application filed before this Court in support of the contention. When this bench queried Counsel if his argument that there is no need for transfer of the case as both complainant and the accused reside in the same area, he could not substantiate the same by any document available on file, including
documents filed with the bail application, which is being listed with this Crl. Transfer Application. He candidly responded in the negative.
3.Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has submitted that the impugned order dismissing the transfer application has referred to the Witnesses Protection Act, 2013, which the applicant may invoke, such that as and when, the complainant and the witnesses attend hearings they will be offered police protection, travelling between Mehrabpur and Kandiaro, involving a distance of about 40 KMs. Therefore, given the 2013 Act, there is no need to transfer the Sessions case from Kandiaro to any other Court, in particular, as evidence has yet to start and the trial is ripe for evidence.
4.Heard counsel for the parties and DPG for the State and perused the material available on record.
5.The Counsel for the Appellant/complainant has put much emphasis on the fact that the Applicant/complainant and the witnesses have to attend hearings involving travel between Mehrabpur and Kandiaro, involving a distance of about 40 KMs. Although this alleged deterrence of distance is not pleaded in the Transfer Application, it cannot be a ground for transfer of the case. Indeed, to this end, the Applicant/Complainant has also not articulated anywhere that the distance of 40 KMs translates into increased travel and transport costs and expenses. But then this is no such ground for transfer. The Applicant/Complainant is at liberty to invoke the provisions of the Witness Protection Act, 2013, to safeguard his passage during trial proceedings. Accordingly, in the circumstances, this bench does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Order dated 23.12.2024. As such, the Crl. Transfer Application No.S- 14 of 2025 is dismissed.
6.The bail Application No.S-74 of 2025 is adjourned to 11.08.2025 for hearing.
Office is directed to place a signed copy of this order in captioned connected matter.
JUDGE
Ihsan/PS.
Text extracted from the court's PDF and reflowed for reading. The court's official copy is authoritative.
Similar judgments
Closest in subject matter, from every court in the library.
- Sindh High Court · 2020 SHC HYD 1487 · 24 Aug 2020 Muhammad Ilyas (Appellant) VS Ld. Additional Sessions Judge Shahdadpur & others (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2024 SHC MPK 441 · 24 Sep 2024 Wali Ahad Khan (Appellant) VS Mumtaz Ali Mallah & others (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 10 Jan 2017 Abdul Latif Gopang & Others (Applicant) VS Syed Kousar Ali Shah Bukhari & Others (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2022 SHC SUK 506 · 1 Apr 2022 Akhtiar Ali Solangi (Appellant) VS Qamar-uridin Solangi & others (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2021 SHC SUK 223 · 27 Sep 2021 Abdul Rasheed Shar (Applicant) VS Ghulam Shabir Shar & others (Respondent)