IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application No.S-15 of 2020.
|
DATE
OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE |
For
hearing of bail application.
Date
of hearing 24.01.2020.
Mr. Rizwan
Ahmed Jagirani Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Abdul
Rahim Jamro Advocate for complainant.
Mr.
Shafi Mohammad Mahar DPG for State.
***************
O R
D E R
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J; Through instant bail application,
applicant Khan Mohammad, Sain Dad and Dito all sons of Rustam Khaskhel seek Pre-arrest
bail in Crime No.117/2019 registered at Police Station, Sobhodero district, Khairpur for offence under Sections 506/2,
447, 34 PPC. Earlier their bail application was declined by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Gambat vide order dated 07.01.2020.
2. The
facts of the prosecution case are mentioned in the FIR attached with the memo
of bail application and the same are not to be re-produced in view of the case
of Mohammad Shakeel v. The State and others reported as PLD 2014 SC 458.
3. Learned
Counsel for applicant contends that the applicant have falsely been involved in
this case by the complainant with ulterior motives. There is unexplained delay
of about 10 days in registration of FIR for which no plausible explanation has
been furnished by the complainant. He further submits that there is admitted
dispute between party over landed property. He mainly contended that bail was
recalled on the ground that accused remained absent and after five minutes of
call applicant appeared and requested for condonation of his excuse but same
was not considered and bail was recalled however, his absence was not willful
or deliberate, therefore, he is entitled for grant of bail. He further submits
that 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 Counsel for complainant conceded for confirmation of bail
while learned Counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the bail on the ground
that on demand of money, the accused persons issued threats to the complainant
party in order to usurp their amount and also issued threats of
dire-consequences not to come at the land though the land is belonging to the
complainant party. He prayed for cancellation of bail application.
5. Heard arguments of learned
Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the incident has taken place on 08.12.2019 at 05:00 p.m. however, the report was lodged on 18.12.2019 at 1830 hours after 10 days delay of the
incident but no plausible explanation for such delay in FIR has been explained by
the complainant. From the perusal of order it appears that bail of accused persons was
recalled due to their non-appearance before the Court but learned Counsel in
his arguments has categorically stated that after passing five minutes accused
persons appeared before learned trial Court but their request was not
considered and bail was recalled purely on technical grounds not on merits. In
this regard he also produced a case diary dated 10.01.2020 which shows that
applicants are attending the trial Court. The applicants are regularly
attending this Court as well as learned trial Court and there is no allegation
of misusing the concession of bail against them.
6. Accordingly, instant bail application is
allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants named above
vide order dated 09.01.2020 is confirmed on same terms and conditions. Applicants
shall continue to appear before trial Court .
Bail application stands disposed of.
J
U D G E
Ihsan