IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 1549 of 2016

Muhammad Yamin………………………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

The State…………………………….……………..……………….Respondent

Date of Order : 20.03.2017

Mr. Ansar Mukhtar, advocate for the Applicant.

Ms. Saify Ali Khan, advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Seema Zaidi, A. P.G for State.

O R D E R

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: Through this application, Muhammad Yamin applicant has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him under FIR 545/2016 at PS Boat Basin under Sections 354, 352, 506 and 504 PPC along with 337-A(i) of PPC. Previously, he appeared before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Karachi South where his pre-arrest bail was declined. This Court has already granted interim pre-arrest bail and now the matter is brought before me for confirmation or otherwise.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed as follows:

(a)        The allegations against the applicant are that he entered in the house of complainant with his family members and others and manhandled the complainant and other inmates due to which, the complainant lost to her foetus.

(b) In the alleged incident, specific injury is not attributed to the applicant but the allegation levelled against him and other accused in the F.I.R. was couched in generalized and collective terms.

(c)        Admittedly no fire arm or sharp cutting weapon is used, therefore, question of recovery does not arise.

(d) The complainant has not bothered to report the incident immediately while police station was a distance of only about half a kilo metre.

(e) The FIR was lodged after seeking directions from the ex-officio justice of peace even then the complainant did not approach to police to record her statement immediately and FIR was lodged with a further delay of two days.

(f) It is traceable from the record that the accused and complainant are residing in neighbourhood and the parties were already antagonistic.

(g) The complainant has approached to private medical practitioner and the medical record is not reliable to connect the untoward happening with the alleged incident.

(h) All of the co-accused for whom similar allegations are levelled succeeded in getting the relief of bail, therefore, similar treatment is required to extended to the applicant.

 3. For what has been observed above I have found the case against the applicant to be a case calling for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Besides, being neighbouring residents with hostile and unfriendly relations, false involvement is not ruled out. Consequently, the pre-arrest bail granted to applicant is confirmed on the same terms and condition.

4. These are the reasons for my short order pronounced on 20-03-2017.

J U D G E