IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Bail Pre-arrest No. 1701 of 2016

Applicant:                              Farooque Ahmed through Mr. Raja Mir Muhammad advocate.

V E R S U S

Respondent:                          The State through Ms. Seema Zaidi A.P.G. Sindh.

Date of hearing:                    09.12.2016.

Date of order:                        09.12.2016.

O R D E R

Khadim Hussain Tunio, J:-    Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No 184 of 2015 u/S 324 PPC registered at PS Mangho Pir, Karachi (West).He was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 31-12-2015.

2.         Briefly stated allegation against the applicant accused are that on 01.07.2015 at about 1600 hours while Zahid Hussain was present along with Abdul Wahid, Noor Muhammad and others at place of incident viz: Hamdard University Park on motor-cycle, fired at the complainant Zahid Hussain with intention to commit his qatl-i-amd and caused him injuries. Earlier the applicant moved bail application, which was dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West vide order dated 21.12.2015.

3.         Learned counsel for applicant contended that there is two days unexplained delay in lodging of F.I.R.; that a few months ago some dispute had taken place between applicant and complainant, therefore, applicant has been falsely involved due to enmity. Learned Counsel further submits that injuries as alleged by the complainant are not on vital parts of the body of the complainant; that the provision of section 324 PPC has been misapplied; that there was no intention of the applicant to kill the complainant. Learned Counsel lastly submits that the charge has been framed, thus, trial has been commenced. He has placed reliance on case law reported in 2015 SCMR 879, 2005 SCMR 784, PLD 2015 Sindh20, 2009 MLD 665, 2009 YLR 9, 2005 MLD 902, 2008 YLR 936, 2016 YLR 403, 2016 P.Cr.L.J 1282, PLJ 2013 Criminal Case 164, 2003 P.Cr.L.J. 619 and 2006 MLD 215.

4.         On the other hand, learned APG has opposed the bail plea of applicant and submitted that 3 empties of 9mm had been secured from place of incident by the police and that the applicant has been attributed active role in the allegation offence, thus, is not entitled for extraordinary concession of pre arrest bail.

5.         Admittedly, two days delay in lodging of F.I.R. has not been fully explained by the complainant. The injuries on the person of complainant are not on vital parts of his body. The injuries on the person of complainant have been declared as “Ghayr-Jaifah Mutulahimah” which carries 3 years punishment, while the applicability of section 324 PPC would be determined at the time of trial. Applicant is attending the trial Court regularly and did not misuse the concession of interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to him. Applicant alleged mala-fide on the part of complainant/police.

6.         For what has been discussed above, I have confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant accused vide order dated 31.12.2015 on the same terms and conditions. These are the reasons for the same.

            JUDGE

Dated: 06.01.2017