AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J. The applicant booked in case Crime No. 100/2021 registered with Police Station Boat Basin Karachi under section 381, P.P.C. approached this Court by filing the captioned application for pre-arrest bail.
2. Record reflects that applicant was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 08.04.2021 and today the same is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that alleged offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is regularly appearing before the trial court. Lastly he prayed that interim pre-arrest bail order dated 08.04.2021 may be confirmed. To support his contentions learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Saindad and others v. The State (SBLR 2021 Sindh 1379).
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh opposed the confirmation of ball stating that the name of applicant/accused is mentioned in the FIR with specific role; the evidence in shape of CCTV Footage is available on record, hence sufficient material is available on the record to connect the applicant in the commission of offence. He has prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that applicant nominated in the FIR with specific role; CCTV Footage also supports the version of complainant, the applicant after obtaining bail did not join the investigation, the evidence available on the record is sufficient to connect the applicant in the commission of alleged offence. Lastly he prayed for rejection of bail application.
6. I have given my deep thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
7. The concept of trust is a particular interest to the nursing, and also an important element in the nurse patient relationship but in the present case, by stealing the gold bangles from a dead body, the applicant has eroded that trust of the general public. In the present case. according to contents of the present FIR, the applicant stolen the gold bangles from the hands of deceased lady in the South City Hospital Karachi and during investigation on the basis of CCTV Footage, the applicant was found involved in the commission of alleged crime. The applicant is named in the FIR with specific role; there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the applicant. The trial court in its order, impugned herein, after examining the entire record has rightly observed that the question of bail is to be determined in the light of prosecution version including gravity of offence, conduct and role ascribed to the applicant mode and manner of the crime. The footages of CCTV and recovery of stolen gold bangles connect the applicant with the commission of crime. As to the delay in registration of the FIR, it may be noted that cases like the one in hand under section 381, P.P.C. always come on surface subsequently and delay in registration of FIR in such matters may be inevitable. The applicant has failed to bring on record any malice, mala fide and ill intention on the part of complainant. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has misused the concession of pre-arrest bail earlier granted to him by the trial court as he did not join the investigation.
8. The mere fact that the offence for which the applicant is charged does not attract the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. cannot per se make him entitled to the concession of bail.
Grant of bail in such like cases is not a rule of universal application as each case merits decision on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Reliance in this respect may advantageously be placed on the cases of Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCMR 442) and Shameel Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCMR 174).
9. It is settled that for deciding the bail application the court has to observe the tentative assessm ent and deeper appreciation of evidence is not required and it will not be fair to go into discussion about the merits of the case at this juncture. In this respect reliance is being placed on the cases of Saleh Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 211) and The State v. The Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 163). Thus taking a tentative assessm ent of the available record, I am of the considered view that there is sufficient material available on record connecting the applicant with the alleged crime and being prima facie linked with the commission of the offence is held disentitled to the concession of bail.
10. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of this case, and the material so far collected by the prosecution, coupled with the CCTV Footages and recovery of stolen gold bangles, it appears that the applicant is involved in the crime as alleged; hence, does not appear to be entitled for the concession of bail. Resultantly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 08.04.2021 is recalled. The applicant is present in court he is taken into custody and remanded to Central Jail, Karachi.
11. Before parting with this order, it is directed that any observations recorded in this order, being purely tentative in nature, should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court where the case be decided on its own merits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.