THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

 

Cr. Bail Applications No.1981 & 1982 of 2017

 

Applicants                 :           Faiz Muhammad Shah, Umaid Ali & Akbar

In-person

 

Complainant            :            None present.

 

Respondent              :            The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, DPG

 

Date of hearing         :           27.6.2018

 

Date of Order            :           27.6.2018

 

ORDER

 

 

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J:    Applicants/ accused are present in person on bail. By this common order, I intend to dispose of above captioned two Bail Applications, as they arise out of same FIR. Through these Bail Applications, applicants/ accused seek bail in Crime No.155/2017 under Sections 447, 427, 35 PPC & 26-A, 63 of Forest Act registered at P.S. Sujawal. It appears from the record that the applicants/ accused were granted pre-arrest bail by this Court vide Order dated 28.12.2017. Today, these bail applications are fixed for confirmation or otherwise.

2.                 The allegations against applicants/ accused are that the complainant Muhammad Jumman lodged the FIR stating therein that he was Range Forest Officer at Hunderani Forest and on 16.11.2017 when he along with his staff namely Jameel Ahmed and Muhammad Hashim, left his office for visiting Hunderani Forest (Government Lands). In the forest he found that compartment (chowkri) No.121, 122 & 129 of Hunderani forest were illegally occupied by accused Umed Ali, Akber and Faiz Muhammad Shah. The trees of the forest have been cut down by the accused, when complainant restrained them, they used filthy language.

3.                 It is contended by applicants/ accused that the case against them is false and has been registered due to enmity. They further submit that there is a delay of five days in lodging of FIR; that the sections applied in the FIR either bailable or their punishment do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC, therefore, under these circumstances, grant of bail is a rule and its refusal an exception; that all witnesses are interested and subordinates of complainant; that challan against them has already been submitted and they are no more required for investigation and the allegations as alleged in the FIR are false and it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether they have committed offence as narrated in FIR or otherwise.

4.                 Learned APG has vehemently opposed the confirmation of bail on the ground that names of the accused transpire in the FIR with specific role to the effect that these applicants/ accused have occupied the Government lands for which the applicants are nothing to do. Therefore, according to him, they do not deserve for any relief.

5.                 Arguments heard and record perused.

6.                 It appears from the record that the alleged incident took place on 16.11.2017, but the FIR has been lodged by complainant Muhammad Jumman on 21.11.2017 after the delay of five days, for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished, as such, on this ground false implication of the applicants/ accused in this case with due deliberation and consultation could not be ruled out. The case and claim of the complainant is that the applicants/ accused have occupied the Government lands, while this fact has been denied by the applicants/ accused by stating that the land in-question is in the name of applicants/ accused namely Umaid Ali and Akbar and in this regard according to them the lease documents are on their names. Under these circumstances, it appears that the dispute in between the parties appears to be civil in nature, which has also been converted into criminal proceedings. All the offences shown in the FIR are either bailable or their punishment do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC. Under these circumstances, grant of bail is a rule and its refusal an exception. No exceptional grounds appear in this case to withhold the bail of the applicant/ accused. Challan against applicants/ accused has already been submitted before trial Court. These applicants are no more required for investigation. The whole case of the prosecution rest upon the evidence of complainant Muhammad Jumman, who is Range Forest Officer and so also his subordinates, therefore, their evidence is required to be minutely scrutinized at the time of trial whether the incident has been taken place in a fashion as stated in FIR by complainant, till then, in my opinion, case of the applicants requires further probe. As observed above that challan against applicants/ accused has been submitted, therefore, under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I have come to this conclusion that the applicants/ accused have made out a case for confirmation of their bail orders already extended in their favour. I, accordingly, in view of the above, confirm the interim bail already extended in favour of the applicants on same terms and conditions with direction to the applicants to appear before the trial Court to face the trial.

7.                 Needless to mention here that the observation, if any, made in this order is tentative in nature and shall not effect the merits of the case. It is made clear that in case if the applicants/ accused misuses the bail during proceedings before the trial Court, the trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the applicants/ accused after due notice and hearing to them.

8.                 In view of the above, these bail applications are disposed of in above terms.

JUDGE

asim/pa