ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 1273 of 2016
Applicants: 1. Mumtaz Ali Shah s/o. Mohammad Shah.
2. Zulfiquar Ali Shah alias Manno Shah s/o. Juman
Shah, through Mr. Mir Muhammad Jamali,
Advocate.
Respondent: The State, through Mr. Abdullah Rajput.
Complainant: Ali Muhammad s/o. Syed Soomar Shah, present in
person.
-----------------
Date of hearing: 08.02.2017
Date of order: 08.02.2017
-----------------
O R D E R
Zafar Ahmed Rajput, J:- After rejection of their earlier application for grant of pre-arrest bail bearing No. 739 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujawal, vide order dated 24.08.2016, through instant criminal bail application, the applicants/accused Mumtaz Ali Shah s/o. Mohammad Shah and Zulfiquar Ali Shah alias Manno Shah s/o. Juman Shah have sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 124 of 2016, registered at PS Sujawal, under Section 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 504, 34 P.P.C. They were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2016, now they seek confirmation of interim bail.
2. The allegation against the applicants/accused is that on 07.07.2016 at 2100 hours they duly armed with Lathi and Teekam in furtherance of their common intention caused Lathi blows on head and leg of Baboo Shah, brother of the complainant, thus committed offence of Shajjah-i-Khafifah and Ghayar Jaefah Hashimah punishable under Section 337-A(i) and 337-F(v) P.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants/accused has submitted that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant; that applicant No.1, namely, Mumtaz Ali Shah is son-in-law and applicant No.2 is cousin of the complainant, who due to family dispute over children falsely implicated the accused by using his influence and managed a false medical certificate from Taluka Hospital Sujawal for the offence punishable under Section 337-F(v) P.P.C., which; however, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. being punishable only for five years, while offence under Section 337-A(i) P.P.C. is bailable; that there is delay of 23 days in lodging the F.I.R. and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant for such delay; that the case of applicants/accused is a fit case of further enquiry; therefore, the applicants/accused are entitled for confirmation of bail. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the applicants/accused has relied upon the cases of Aziz and 2 others vs. The State (2007 P.Cr.L.J. 299) and Muhammad Yaqoob vs. The State (2005 YLR 1828).
4. On the other hand, learned APG has opposed this application on the ground that both the applicants/accused are nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role and they have caused injuries to brother of the complainant and they are facing charge under section 337-F(v) P.P.C. which are non-bailable.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.
6. It appears that applicants and complainant are related inter se and they were annoyed with each other over dispute among their children. There is delay of 23 days in lodging the F.I.R. and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant for such delay. From the medico-legal report it is clear that all the injuries are punishable with five years or less. Hence, the alleged offence does not falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and ordinarily in such cases the bail is to be granted as a rule. The present case does not fall within the exception laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Tariq Bashir vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). The applicants were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail on 05.09.2016 and since then they are attending the trial Court regularly and no complaint with regard to misusing the concession of ad-interim bail has been made by the complainant. Hence, the interim bail granted to the applicants/accused vide order dated 05.09.2016 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.
10. Needless to mention here that the observations made herein-above are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of applicants on merits and if the applicant in any manner tries to misuse the concession of bail, it would be open for the trial Court to cancel his bail after issuing him the requisite notice.
JUDGE
Athar Zai