ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Bail Application No. 1628 of 2016
Mr. Umer Farooq, advocate for the applicant
Shakeel Ahmed son of Jamil Ahmed.
Mr. Muntazir S. Mehdi, APG for the State.
Date of hearing: 28.02.2017
Date of announcement: 16.03.2017
O R D E R
Khadim Hussain Tunio (J).-Through instant bail application, applicant seeks his admission on pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 129/2016 of P.S. Paposh Nagar, for the offence under section 337(iv),504,337(ii)A,337(f)I PPC. The applicant was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2016.
2. It is alleged that on 04.10.2016 at about 2230 hours applicant caused beaten to his real sister complainant Mst. Seema Bibi who has received internal/external injuries and one injury on her left eye, who approached the police obtained letter for examination, treatment and report and after issuance of MLC appeared at P.S. and lodged FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that application has been falsely implicated in the caption case with mala-fide intention and with intention to blackmail him; that there is 14 days unexplained delay in lodging of FIR; that the complainant is real sister of applicant, after her divorced she is residing with her father in the same house in which applicant is residing on the ground-floor; that the applicant filed Civil Suit No. 192/2016 against the complainant in respect of said house; that the family of applicant is suffering mental stress due to complainant who always tries to quarrel with applicant’s wife and abused her without any cause; that there is no eye-witness of incident; that complainant has notdisclosed the kind of weapon alleged to have been used by applicant for causing alleged injuries; that the injuries shown in the MLC have not been disclosed in the FIR and same have been suppressed by the complainant; that the police intend to arrest with mala-fide intention, ulterior motives at the behest of complainant in order to disgrace, disrespect, humiliate and harass the applicant.
4. As in contrast to the above, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail of applicant, while submitting that applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role that the applicant has caused injuries to his real sister and misbehaved with her/his father and booked them in criminal cases by lodging FIRs; that the injuries caused by the applicant to the complainant alleged to have been declared as punishable under section 337(A)(iv) PPC. However, learned State Counsel has argued in the same line, as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. I have given close consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, and perused the relevant record.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been noticed by me that the alleged injuries caused by the applicant to complainant Mst. Seema attract the offences under section 337A(iv)(A-ii)(A-i) PPC which are non-bailable. The record of investigation of this case shows that the complainant has suppressed the injury which has been declared as shajjah-i-mudihah under section 337-A (iv) PPC in the FIR lodged by her. After completion of investigation, challan has already been submitted in connection with this case and hence, physical custody of the applicant is not required at this stage for the purpose of investigation. It is trite that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment. The complainant and application are related inter-se being sister and brother and they are disputing with each other over the house, in which they are residing alongwith their father, per FIR. The civil and criminal litigation is already pending between the parties. The applicant has been admitted to bail in FIR No. 155/2016 under section 324/34 PPC P.S. Paposh Nagar, vide order dated 03.12.2016 by the learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-Central. The enmity is double-edged sword and cuts both ways. The application of Section 337-A (iv) PPC requires consideration.
7. For what has beendiscussed above, the applicant has successfully made out his case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, interim pre-arrest bail alreadygranted to applicant vide order dated 11.11.2016 ishereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. It is worthwhile to mention here that whatever has been observed hereinabove,it is tentative in nature and will not cause prejudice to the case of either partyat the trial.
J U D G E