ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 1198 of 2016

Applicants:                            Adeel Shahzad @ Sabir and others, through

                                                            Mr. Raheel Ali Bhatti, Advocate.

            Respondent:                          The State, through Ms. Rahat Ehsan, DPG.

Complainant:                        Ali Raza s/o. Qadir Bukhsh, through

Mr. Nasir Mehmod, Advocate.

                                                            ========

Date of hearing:                    16.03.2017

Date of order:                        16.03.2017

                                                            ========

O R D E R

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J:- Through instant criminal bail application, the applicants/accused, namely, (1) Adeel Shahzad @ Sabir, (2) Farhan Shahzad (3) Atif Shahzad all sons of Mukhtar Ahmed Faizi, (4) Owais Hameed s/o. Hameed Umer, (5) Rana Rashid Rehman s/o. Rana Abdul Rehman and (6) Saif Ali s/o. Syed Farhat Ali have sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 388 of 2016, registered at P.S. Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi under Section 147/148/337-A(iv) P.P.C.  Their earlier bail applications bearing No. 1395 and 1763 of 2016 were heard and dismissed by the learned V^th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East, vide order dated 16.08.2016. They were admitted to ad-interim bail by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2016, now they seek confirmation of their bail.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case as narrated in the aforesaid F.I.R. lodged by the complainant Ali Raza s/o. Qadir Bukhsh are that  on 22.06.2016 at 1715 hours applicants/accused were, with the permission of union, removing the stalls set up in the Erum Shopping Centre, situated at Gulistan-e-Jauhar, which was resisted by the complainant and other shopkeepers, whereupon accused persons being annoyed gave fists and kicks blows to complaint and his cousin Ayub and Waheed Shah and accused Sabir hit some hard substance on the jaw of complaint and on the nose of Ayub which started bleeding. During incident cash of Rs.45,000/- and Rs. 18,00/- as well as two mobile phones were also misplaced.

3.         The learned counsel for the applicants/accused has mainly contended that the accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with malice and ulterior motive, who was an ex-employee of accused, and fired from job on account of stealing articles from the shops, on which he had threatened the accused for dire consequences; that the complainant used to arrange illegal stalls in the market in front of shops of accused, which was resisted by them, upon which complainant became annoyed and beaten the accused and destroyed articles lying in the shop; that the accused have challenge the MLO, managed by the complainant; that the accused persons have also lodged F.I.R. bearing No. 446/2016 at PS Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi under Section 506-B, 427, 34 P.P.C. against the complainant and since it is a fit case of further enquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., the interim bail may be confirmed. 

4.         On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this application for grant of bail on the ground that the accused have caused injury to the complainant, which has been declared by the MLO as Shjjah-i-munaqillah punishable under Section 337-A(iv), which carries imprisonment of either description for ten years; therefore, the accused are not entitled for bail. 

5.         The learned DPG while adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed grant of bail.

6.          I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused, learned counsel for the complainant and learned DPG as well as perused the material available on record.

 7.        The complainant claims to have his shop in Erum Shopping Centre, where the shops of the accused are situated and the alleged incident had taken placed, but  he has failed to furnish the number of his shop. There is no denial to the fact that the stalls were set up in front of shops of accused illegally and the same were being removed by the accused with the consent of Union when the alleged incident took place. There is a counter version of the case. It is yet to be determine who infact the aggressor was; hence, it is a fit case of further enquiry as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr. P.C. The accused after obtaining ad-interim bail are attending the trial Court regularly and there is no complaint of misusing the concession of interim bail. I, therefore, confirm the interim bail granted to accused, vide order dated 23.08.2016, on the same terms and conditions.  

JUDGE

Athar Zai