ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 1073 of 2016

Applicant:                             Sufyan s/o. Afzal, through Syed Hasan Ali,

                                                Advocate.

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

Complainant:                        Shakeel Ahmed, through Mr. Muhammad Nasir,

                                                Advocate.

Date of hearing:                    25.01.2017

Date of order:                        25.01.2017

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

O R D E R.

Zafar Ahmed Rajput, J:-     Having rejected his earlier application for grant of bail bearing No. 314 of 2016 by the learned IV^th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central, vide order dated 22.04.2016,  the applicant/accused Sufyan s/o. Afzal, through instant Criminal Bail Application has sought pre-arrest bail  in Crime No. 27 of 2016 registered at PS Super Market, Karachi, under Section 506-B/337/34 P.P.C.  He was admitted to ad-interim bail by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2016, now he seeks confirmation of his pre-arrest bail.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Shakeel Ahmed lodged aforementioned FIR on 18.03.2016 alleging therein that he is owner of Al-Razzaq Mall and one Mst. Nasima runs her beauty parlor in the said Mall. She was defaulter in payment of electricity bill; therefore, he disconnected the electric supply, on that she called an electrician for restoration of her electricity. Hence he alongwith supervisor Irshad went at the spot and forbade Mst. Nasima to do so, on that three or four persons including father of Mst. Nasima, namely, Ghulam Sabir and her son applicant/accused Sufyan started abusing and beating them and hit something on the face of supervisor Irshad as a result thereof blood started oozing from his mouth and thereafter Sufyan took out pistol and issued threats to complainant and supervisor Irshad for causing death.

3.         The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case for ulterior motive; that the complainant managed a false medical certificate with regard to injury of said supervisor Irshad, which was challenged before the Special Medical Board,  that declared the same as incorrect; that there is no other allegation against the applicant except criminal intimidation for causing death, which requires detailed probe; hence apparently FIR has been lodged by the complainant due to malice and ulterior motives; therefore, the applicant is entitled for confirmation of ad-interim bail.

4.         On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this application on the ground that on the strength of fire arm the applicant/accused  not only  issued criminal intimidation to the complainant for causing death but also caused injury to supervisor Irshad with the result that his one tooth was dislocated and the alleged offence falls within the purview of Section 337(6) P.P.C., which is punishable for ten (10) years; however, he has admitted that the said medical certificate has been declared by the Special Medical Board as incorrect and against the findings of the Special Medical Board, the complainant has not moved any application for constitution of Super Medical Board.

5.         The learned APG while adopting the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed application for grant of bail on the ground that as per MLC No. 1420/16 dated 03.03.2016 issued by the medicolegal officer Abbasi Shaheed Hospital one tooth of the injured Irshad has been dislocated and the same falls within the purview of Section 336(6) P.P.C.

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

7.         It is an admitted position that the medical certificate issued by the MLO has been declared as incorrect by the Special Medical Board; therefore, application of Section 336 P.P.C. is yet to be determined by the learned trial Court. As regard the allegation against the applicant of issuing criminal intimidation to complainant, it may be noted that as per contents of the FIR, he was having fire arm in his hands but the same was not used by him. Under the circumstances, the case of the applicant falls within the purview of further enquiry as envisaged under Sub-Section 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C; hence, ad-interim bail already granted to the applicant vide order dated 27.07.2016 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. 

JUDGE

Athar Zai