ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr. Misc. Appln. No. S-161 of 2020

 

Date	Order with signature of Judge

 

For hearing of main case.

06-08-2020

 

Mr. Blosch Ahmed Junejo, Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Zafar Ali Malgani, Advocate for private respondent

            Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the private respondent with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, not only attempted to trespass into landed property of Khurshed Ahmed Junejo local Zamindar but threatened complainant Nadeem to be killed with pistol, for that the private respondent was booked accordingly.

                        The private respondent was admitted to bail by learned 1^st Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Larkana, which the applicant has sought to be cancelled, such cancellation was declined not only by learned trial Magistrate but by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. Now the applicant has come before this Court to seek cancellation of bail of the private respondent by way of instant application u/s. 497 (5) Cr.PC.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent is hardened criminal and he has been admitted to bail by learned trial Magistrate in mechanical manner; he is misusing the concession of bail and is attempting to tamper with the evidence by threatening the applicant and his witnesses; to prove such assertion the affidavits of PWs Ghulam Murtaza and Asadullah have been filed and those according to learned counsel for the applicant have not been rebutted by the private respondent. By contending so, he sought for cancellation of bail to the applicant. In support of his contentions, he relied upon cases of The State vs. Aziz alias Abdul Aziz (PLD 1985 Karachi-27), (2). Arbab Ali vs. Khamiso and others 1985 (SCMR-195),   (3). Haider Ali Vs. Nisar Khan alias Gudoo and another (1999 MLD-2185) and (4). Zulfiqar Ali Vs. Azizullah and another (2004 MLD-235).

                           It is contended by learned counsel for the private respondent that the private respondent is actual owner of the land under dispute and he is being involved in false cases one after other by the complainant party only to make him withdraw from his civil suit and affidavits of PWs are managed and those have got no legal value. By contending so, he sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application.

                        Learned D.P.G for the State has sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application by contending that the private respondent has been admitted to bail on point of further inquiry and offence is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        All the penal sections applied in FIR are bailable except one u/s. 506/2 PPC; the applicability whereof obviously is calling for its determination at trial and the same even otherwise is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC; there are rival claims of the ownership over the disputed land and civil litigation between the parties on such dispute is pending adjudication before the Civil Court having jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the learned trial Magistrate was right to admit the private respondent to bail by making a conclusion that reasonable grounds exist justifying admitting the private respondent to bail; such concession of bail could hardly be cancelled by this Court in case like the present one.

                        The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In none of the case law so relied upon the bail granted to accused involved for offence of attempt to make trespass and criminal intimidation was cancelled.

                        For what has been discussed above, the instant Crl.Misc.Application fails and it is dismissed accordingly, with direction to learned trial Magistrate to expedite the disposal of the case preferably within two months, after receipt of this order.

J U D G E