ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 1312 of 2016

 

Applicants:                            (1) Muhammad Salman, (2) Muhammad Imran,

                                                (3) Muhammad Irfan and (4) Muhammad Faizan

                                                all sons of Muhammad Shafiq Khan,  through

                                                Ms. Farida Usmani, Advocate.

 

Respondent:                          The State, through Mr. Abdullah Rajput, APG.

 

Complainant:                        Azmat Hussain, through Mr. Muhammad Akram,

                                                Advocate.

                                               

Date of hearing:                    24.01.2017

Date of order:                        24.01.2017

-----------------

                                               

O R D E R.

 

Zafar Ahmed Rajput, J:-     Applicants/accused Muhammad Irfan and Muhammad Faizan are called absent. No medical certificate in compliance of order dated 23.01.2017 has been produced. Hence, interim bail order dated 28.09.2016 to the extent of above named applicants is hereby recalled so also the bail application is dismissed. Office is directed to issue show cause notice to their surety.

 

2.         Having rejected their first bail application bearing No. 1738 of 2016 by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, vide order dated 29.08.2016, the applicants/accused (1) Muhammad Salman, and (2) Muhammad Imran,  through instant Criminal Bail Application have sought pre-arrest bail  in Crime No. 421 of 2016 registered at PS Zaman Town, Karachi, under Section 337-F(vi), 337-A(i) P.P.C.  They were admitted to ad-interim bail by this Court vide order dated 28.09.2016, now they seeks confirmation of their pre-arrest bail.

 

2.         Precisely, the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Azmat Hussain lodged aforementioned FIR on 23.07.2016 stating therein that on 15.07.2016 at about 11:00 p.m. he was sitting outside his house when applicants/accused came there and without any reason started beating him due to which his right arm became inured and he also received various injuries on his body. 

 

3.         The learned counsel for the applicants/accused has mainly contended that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the police at the behest of the complainant for ulterior motives; that the alleged offence punishable under Section 337-A(i) P.P.C. is bailable while offence punishable under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.;  that there is delay of eight (08) days in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant; that no reason for maltreating the complainant at the hands of applicants has been given in the FIR; that there is no eye witness of the incident; as such, the interim bail granted to the applicants is liable to be confirmed. 

 

4.         On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned APG have opposed the grant of bail to applicants/accused on the ground that the applicants/accused have caused severe injury on the arm of the complainant due to which mid shaft of his arm has fractured; therefore, they are not entitled to concession of bail. 

 

5.         I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

 

6.         Admittedly, the injuries received by the complainant have been declared as Shajjah-i-Khafifah and Ghyar-e-Jaifah Munaqillah. The first injury is punishable under Section 337-A(1) P.P.C. and carries punishment of Daman, and imprisonment of either description for two years and is a bailable offence, whereas the second injury is punishable under Section 337-F(vi) and carries punishment of Damanm, and imprisonment of either description for seven years; therefore, the same do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It further appears that there are general allegations against the applicants and none of the applicants has been assigned any specific role of causing alleged injury to complainant; therefore,  allegation against the applicants require further probe into the matter. Hence, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants/accused No. 1 & 2, vide order dated 28.09.2016 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.  

 

 

JUDGE

Athar Zai