THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Bail Application No.125 of 2019

Applicant                   :           Manthar through Mr. S. Masood Ahmed Shah,

Advocate

Complainant            :            None present.

Respondent              :            The State through Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing         :           02.5.2019

Date of Order            :           02.5.2019

ORDER

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J:    Applicant/ accused is present on interim bail granted to him by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2019. Today this bail application is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.

2.       The allegations against the applicant/ accused according to the contents of FIR are that on alleged date, time and place, the present applicant/ accused along with co-accused duly armed with hatchet and lathies used abusive language, applicant/ accused Manthar inflicted hatchet injury to the complainant Ali Ahmed on his head, whereas co-accused have caused lathi blows to the complainant on his shoulder and other parts of the body.

3.       It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case in a pre-planned manner by the complainant side. Not only this, but three sons of the applicant/ accused were also booked in this case. Per learned counsel incident took place on 26.10.2018 at 0800 hours and thereafter FIR was lodged on 15.12.2018 at 1500 hours, after a delay of more than one and half months. Medical Certificate is also managed one, which has already been challenged by present applicant/ accused before the Special Medical Board in respect of injuries to complainant. It is also argued by learned counsel for applicant that due to non-appearance of the complainant party before Special Medical Board, the medical certificate in favour of the complainant was suspended/ kept in abeyance. Per learned counsel, the applicant and his three sons were granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail in this crime by the learned trial Court but subsequently vide order dated 02.01.2019, his sons’ bails were confirmed and the applicant’s bail was dismissed without assigning any valid reason. It is further contended that applicant/ accused is aged person and is in humiliation at the hands of police, besides charge has been framed, but the case has still not been commenced and the applicant/ accused is appearing before the trial Court without any progress in trial. Therefore, under these circumstances, learned counsel for applicant has prayed for confirmation of bail.

4.       None present on behalf of the complainant. However, learned Additional Prosecutor General has opposed this bail application on the ground that there is a direct allegation against the applicant/ accused by causing hatchet blow on the vital part of the complainant.

5. I have given my anxious thoughts to the contentions raised at the bar and have gone through the case papers so made available before me.

6. It appears from the record that the case has been challaned and applicant/ accused is appearing before the trial Court. FIR is delayed about more than one month for which no satisfactory explanation is available on record. It appears from the record that in this matter three sons of the applicant/ accused have also been nominated and those have been granted bail by this Court but the bail to the present applicant/ accused has been rejected in view of medical certificate, but subsequently, the said medical certificate has been suspended/ kept in abeyance for want of appearance of the complainant/ injured before the Special Medical Board. The punishment of offences as stated/ shown in FIR do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Cr.P.C. except 337-L(2) and it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether the applicant/ accused has caused injury to the complainant or otherwise. Since the applicant/ accused is appearing before the trial Court and the case has still not been commenced, then question arises when it will be completed, therefore, under the circumstances, the applicant/ accused has made out a case for further inquiry in the matter. I, accordingly, what I have observed above, confirm the interim bail in favour of the applicant/ accused on same terms and conditions with direction to applicant/ accused to appear before the trial Court to face the trial.

7. Needless to mention here that any observation if 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 during proceedings the applicant/ accused misuses the bail, then trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the applicant after due notice to him and without making any reference to this court.

This bail application is disposed of in above terms.

JUDGE

asim/pa