IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 1023 of 2018
Muhammad Wasif
..
..
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
..
.Respondent
Date
of Hearing : 20.08.2018
Mr.
Saathi M. Ishaque, advocate
for applicant
Ms.
Hina Jawaid, advocate for
complainant
Mr.
Abrar Ali, DPG for State
O R D E R
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui,
J: The
applicant Muhammad Wasif is seeking post arrest bail in
a case registered against him vide crime No.11/2018 at PS. Dhabeji,
District Thatta under Sections 320, 322, 427, 337-G
and 279 PPC.
2.
I
have heard the arguments advanced from either side and perused record /
citations produced before me. From whatever submitted and placed before me
regarding the instant matter, I have gathered following observations:
(a)
The
allegation against the applicant is that while he along with his family was
travelling on Highway and a woman (his wife) was driving the car, it collided
with a rickshaw in which complainant, his brother and three of his friends were
going from Karachi to Thatta.
(b)
It is worth noting that as per contents of FIR, the
car was driven by a woman regarding whom the learned counsel for the
complainant emphasizes that she is wife of applicant.
(c)
The woman is still an absconder and she might be wife
of the applicant but for her criminal and/or negligent folly, the applicant
cannot be held responsible. For her act of absconding away, the applicants
arm-twisting cannot be allowed.
(d)
It is worth to note that complainant and five others were
boarding in the rickshaw, which was going from Karachi to Thatta
with intention to attend festivities at the shrine of Abdullah Shah Ashabi.
(e)
Amongst the penal sections, Section 322 is non-bailable but the punishment provided for qatl-bis-sabab is the payment of diyat
only besides applicant may be held at the most responsible for actus proximus while the actual
culprit who is responsible for actus reus is someone-else.
(f)
During course of arguments, it was also uttered that
the efforts of compromise could not be materialized because the accused persons
are not willing to fulfill demand of the complainant party. It is worth
mentioning that the aim of penal laws is to punish the offenders and such
punishment may be in shape of diyat. If the
complainant party is seeking compensation then a better, efficient and
effective course is available to them in the shape of filing a proceeding under
the Fatal Accident Act.
2.
The upshot of the above discussion is that a case of
bail is made out in favour of the applicant, as such he
was admitted to bail subject of furnishing a surety of Rs. 1,000,000/- (rupees one million) up to the entire satisfaction
of the trial Court vide a short order dated 20-08-2018.
3.
The above observations are entirely tentative in
nature, as such the trial Court is required to proceed
with the matter without bearing the same in mind and make sure that these
observations would not affect the case of either side during trial.
4.
It is further observed that if after getting bail, the
applicant fails to appear during trial and will become absconded or fugitive to
trial than the trial Court will be justified to take any action against the
applicant and had a surety including cancellation of his bail without making a
reference to this Court.
5.
The foregoing paragraphs contain the reasons for my
short order referred above.
J U D G E