ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

Cr.B.A.No.S-  572 of 2010

DATE                                     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

            For hearing.

30.11.2010

Mr. Wali Muhammad Khoso, Advocate a/w applicant Geo Khan Khoso.

Mr. Ahsan Gul Dahri, Advocate a/w complainant Hussain Bux.

Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G for the State.

                                    =

Through this application, applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.41/2010 of P.S Kazi Ahmed registered U/s 394, 337-A(ii) and 337-L(ii) PPC.

On 31.8.2010 interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the applicant.

The contents of the prosecution case in nutshell are that on 1.3.2010 complainant Hussain Bux lodged report stating therein that on 25.2.2010 at about 7-00 p.m when he alongwith PWs Deedar Hussain and Sher Muhammad was chitchatting in his house, accused Jeo Khoso armed with hatchet, Awais Khoso with pistol, Asghar with lathi and Kaloo with pistol came there. Out of them accused Asghar caused him lathi blow, below his right eye whereas accused Jeo Khoso inflicted him hatchet injury at his head. Accused Awais Khoso took out Rs.300/- and mobile phone from his pocket whereas accused Kaloo Khoso and Awais Khoso further took out Rs.3000/- from bags. They also removed golden ear rings and a ring from Mst. Hawa and Murad Khatoon and gave them kicks and fists blows and also abused the complainant party. However, due to intervention of PWs Sher Muhammad and Deedar Hussain, they went away. Later on complainant, Mst. Hawa and Mst. Murad Khatoon were brought at Police Station and after obtaining the letter they remained under treatment in Government Hospital and after discharging from the Hospital, complainant approach the police and lodged the report.

It is inter alia contended that applicant is innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Per learned counsel, there is a dispute between complainant and Gohram Zardari whereas the present applicant is friend of Gohram Zardar that’s why he has been implicated in this false case. It is further contended that no such incident has taken place but a false case has been cocked up in order to fix the applicant in this case. It is urged with vehemence that FIR is belated and co-accused Awais, Kaloo and Asghar have been granted pre-arrest bail by the trial Court therefore, present applicant also deserves the same concession under rule of consistency. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases reported as Shaukat Ali alias Laloo Vs. The State (2009 YLR 184) and Imtiaz Vs. The State (2006 P.Cr.L.J 1107).

Conversely, learned D.P.G for the State assisted by learned advocate for complainant opposed the bail plea of the applicant on the ground that his name appears in the FIR and specific role is attributed to him. No malafide has been alleged against the complainant party therefore, his bail plea is liable to be rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly, the name of applicant transpires in the FIR. It is alleged that at the time of occurrence he was armed with hatchet and inflicted hatchet injury on the head of complainant. So far delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, in this regard FIR reveals that after the incident, complainant was admitted in a Government Hospital and when he discharged from the Hospital, he appeared at Police Station and lodged the FIR thus delay in FIR is properly explained. So far as the case of co-accused Awais, Kaloo and Asghar who were granted pre-arrest bail by the trial Court is concerned, the case of present applicant is on different footings to that of co-accused as it is alleged in the FIR that accused Awais and Kaloo were armed with pistols but they did not cause any injury to the complainant or PWs. As far as co-accused Asghar is concerned, he was allegedly armed with lathi and caused lathi injury to the complainant whereas the present applicant is said to be armed with hatchet and he inflicted the hatchet injury on the head of complainant. Apart from that, applicant has not alleged any malafide on the part of complainant or prosecution which is pre-requisite for grant of extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail as laid down by their lordships in PLD 2009 SC 327. Moreover, the complainant’s version is supported by PWs in their 161 Cr.P.C statements and medical evidence also corroborated the ocular version. The law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, with profound respect is on different footings and not helpful to the case in hand, as both cases related to injury cases whereas case in hand pertains to Section 394 and 337 P.P.C.

For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that a prima face case exists against the applicant hence he does not deserve the extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, bail application is dismissed and the order dated. 31.8.2010 by which the applicant was granted interim pre-arrest bail, is hereby re-called.  

JUDGE

Tufail