ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 1145 of 2016
Applicants: 1. Muhammad Khan Chang s/o. Muhammad Hashim
2. Muhammad Qassim s/o. Peer Bux Chang.
3. Muhammad Alam Chang s/o. Muhammad
Ibrahim Chang.
Through M/s Umar Hayat Sandhu and Abdul
Hakeem, Advocates.
Respondent: The State, through Mr. Abdullah Rajput.
Complainant: Ali Khan s/o. Hussain Chang, through Mr. Ghulam
Shabbir Babar, Advocate.
-----------------
Date of hearing: 09.02.2017
Date of order: 09.02.2017
-----------------
O R D E R
Zafar Ahmed Rajput, J:- After rejection of their earlier application for grant of pre-arrest bail bearing No. 137 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Thatta, vide order dated 18.03.2016, the applicants/accused (1) Muhammad Khan Chang s/o. Muhammad Hashim Chang, (2) Muhammad Qassim s/o. Peer Bux Chang and (3) Muhammad Alam Chang s/o. Muhammad Ibrahim Chang, through instant criminal bail application, have sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 03 of 2016, registered at PS Jhimpir, District Thatta under Section 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 504, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. They were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2016, now they seek confirmation of interim bail.
2. The allegation against the applicants/accused is that on 16.02.2016 at 1500 hours they alongwith co-accused Rajab Ali Chang, Baboo Chang, Imam Bux, Behram Chang, Allah Dino Chang and Saleh, in furtherance of their common intention, caused iron rods and Lathi blows on head, arms and other parts of body of father of the complainant, namely, Hussain and his relative, namely, Gul Hassan and Ghulam Nabi.
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 for malice and ulterior motive on account of dispute over land; that the offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. being punishable up to for five years; that there is delay of 29 hours in lodging the F.I.R. and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant for such delay; that there are general allegations against the applicants and no specific role has been assigned to any of them; that co-accused Rajab Chang, Imam Bux Chang, Behram Chang, Allah Dino Chang and Saleh Chang have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Thatta; as such, on the rule of consistency the present accused are also entitled for the same concession; that the case of accused is a fit case of further enquiry; therefore, the accused are entitled for confirmation of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application on the ground that the accused are nominated in the F.I.R. who attacked upon three persons of complainant party with intention to commit their murder; as such, they are not entitled to concession of bail.
5. Learned APG while adopting arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed this bail application.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.
7. It is an admitted fact that there is a dispute between complainant and accused persons over land. Co-accused Rajab Chang, Imam Bux Chang, Behram Chang, Allah Dino Chang and Saleh Chang have already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Thatta on same sets of facts; as such, the rule of consistency is also applicable in the case of present accused. There are general allegations against the accused as no specific role has been assigned to any of them. From the medico-legal report it is clear that all the injuries allegedly caused by the accused are on the non-vital part of the body of the injured P.Ws, thus it cannot be said with certainty that the accused had intention to commit murder of injured P.Ws, as such, the question of applicability of section 324 P.P.C. to the case needs serious consideration at the trial stage. The alleged injuries are punishable up to five years or less; hence, the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. 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 accused were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail on 10.08.2016 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 accused vide order dated 10.08.2016 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 accused on merits and if the accused in any manner try to misuse the concession of bail, it would be open for the trial Court to cancel their bail after issuing them the requisite notice.
JUDGE
Athar Zai