IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application No.S-545 of 2019
Crl. Misc. application No.S-865/2019
|
DATE
OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE |
For
hearing of main case.
Date
of hearing 10.02.2020.
Mr. Sardar
Akber F. Ujjan Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Achar Khan
Gabole Advocate for complainant in Crl. B.A No.S-545/2019 and for applicant in
Crl. Misc. application No.S-865/2019.
Mr.
Abdul Rehman Kolachi DPG for State.
***************
O R
D E R
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J; Through captioned bail application,
applicants Ghulam Rasool alias Kouro, Rahib Ali and Sahib Dino alias Porho seek
Pre-arrest bail in Crime No.131/2019 registered at Police Station, Kandiaro District,
Naushehro Feroze for offence under Sections 324, 114, 147,148, 149 PPC. Earlier
their bail application was declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro
vide order dated 09.08.2019 while complainant/applicant Kamaluddin filed Crl.
Misc. application No-S-865/2019 for recalling the order dated 19.07.2019 passed
by Sessions Judge, Naushehro Feroze in Crl. B.A No.1008/2019 whereby bail was
granted to respondent/accused Noor Mohammad Ghanghro in aforesaid Crime.
2. The
facts of the prosecution case in brief are that complainant Kamaluddin Ghanghro
lodged FIR on 12.07.2019 at 2200 hours at Police Station, Kandiaro stating therein
that marriage of his sister namely Mst. Rehmat Ghanghro who was solemnized
with one Ghulam Rasool alias Kouro
Ghanghro, out of said wedlock she has one son and two daughters and he is
avoiding to pay maintenance to her thereafter sister of complainant obtained
divorce from him by way of ‘Khula’
through Court of Law and she married to another person namely Ali Hassan
Ghanghro. On 10.07.2019 the nephew of complainant (sister’s son) namely
Najamuddin aged about 12 years came in the house of his sister to which said
Ghulam Rasool alias kouro became annoyed and asked his son why he has come to
his mother and maltreated him. He and his sister then appeared at Police
Station for report and when they returning back reached at top of Nusrat Canal
at about 8:00 p.m. they saw five persons
armed with hatchet they were identified by the complainant party to be
Mushtaque Ahmed, Noor Mohammad, Ghulam Rasool alias Kouro, Rahib and Sahib Dino
alias Porho came there retraining them not to report to whom sister of
complainant asked that she will make complaint against them on which accused
Mushtaque Ahmed Ghanghro instigated others not to leave her and will commit her
murder. Thereafter, all the accused persons made hatchet blows on her head,
arms, legs and other parts of body and she fell down by raising cries, blood
was oozing. Complainant thereafter raised cries which attracted relatives of
complainant Nadeem Ghanghro and Ikhtiar Ghanghro who seen and identified
accused persons while causing injuries and committing the alleged offence,
thereafter all the accused persons while causing injuries and committing the
alleged offence succeeded to ran away. Complainant then brought her injured sister
at Police Station, obtained letter for treatment and after treatment from Taluka
Hospital Kandiaro, lodged FIR.
3. Learned
Counsel for applicant contends that the applicants have falsely been involved
in this case by the complainant with ulterior motives; that there is
unexplained delay of about 50 hours in registration of FIR for which no
plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; He further submits
offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. He lastly submitted that the
applicants are respectable persons and unless protected, they would suffer undue
harassment and humiliation by stating
so, he prayed for confirmation of bail.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor
General appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Achar Khan Gabole Counsel for
complainant conceded for confirmation of bail while learned Counsel for
complainant vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that applicants are
nominated in the FIR with specific role for causing injuries to one lady; that
medical evidence is supported the version of complainant; that though the
offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C but
the same is no ground for grant of bail. Lastly he prayed for cancellation of
bail application.
5. Heard arguments of learned
Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly, the incident took place on 10.07.2019 at 0800 hours however, the report was lodged on 12.07.2019 at 2200 hours after 50 hours delay of
the incident but no plausible explanation for such delay in FIR has been explained
by the complainant which suggest that FIR was registered with consultation and
deliberations.
7. The allegations against all the accused
nominated in the FIR are that they all were armed with hatchets and caused
hatchet bellows to the injured, No specific injury was alleged against each of
accused surprisingly on scrutiny of medical certificate issued by the doctor it
is observed that all injuries are of Hard and Blunt substance, this ground
alone is sufficient to hold that the case is one of further inquiry.
8. The injuries mentioned in the MLC are
punishable up to 7 years and no one received any grievous injury during the
incident therefore the ingredients of section 324 PPC are missing and the same
is to be decided by the trial court after recording the evidence.
9. It is a well-settled principle of law that deeper
appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of bail but the
material is to be assessed tentatively, from the tentative assessment of
material available on record applicants in bail application No.S-545/2019 are make out their
case for confirmation of bail therefore bail application is allowed and interim
pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants named above vide order dated 21.10.2019
is confirmed on same terms and conditions. Applicants shall continue to appear
before trial Court.
10. From the perusal of record, it appears that bail grant order in favour of respondent
is speaking and passed according to law. It is wel-settled principal of law
that once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then very
strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancelling the same.
Provision of Section 497(5), Cr.P.C is not punitive. Indeed, without having any
material before the Court the concession of bail was misused or accused persons
absented or avoided judicial process but there is no complaint against
respondent Noor Mohammad even learned Counsel has also failed to point out that
respondent has misused the concession of bail. Therefore, I am of the firm view that the
impugned order dated 19.07.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge; Naushehro
Feroz in Crl. B.A. No.1008/2019 does not require interference by this Court.
Accordingly, Crl. Misc. application No.S-865 is dismissed summarily.
11. Bail
application and Crl. Misc. Application stand disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Ihsan