IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No. S-430 of 2020

Applicant:                                Nazar Muhammad Brohi,

Through M/s Ashiq Hussain Kalhoro and Muhammad Yousuf Rajpar, Advocates.

Complainant:                           Abdul Karim Brohi,

Through Miss. Ghulam Khadija Bhatti, advocate.

State:                                       Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo,

Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing:                       23-10-2020

Date of Decision:                      23-10-2020

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.-   Through the captioned bail application, applicant Nazar Muhammad Brohi has sought for pre-arrest bail in case, emanating from F.I.R. No.31/2020, registered at Police Station Dil Murad, for offence under Sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 148,149,504 P.P.C. Earlier his bail plea was declined by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad vide order dated 07.08.2020.

2. Facts of the case are mentioned in the F.I.R, copy whereof has been attached with the memo of application, hence no need to reproduce here.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is inordinate unexplained delay of about four days in registration of F.I.R; that according to the complainant, the incident took place on 21.07.2020 but the F.I.R was registered on 25.07.2020;, that all the sections applied in the F.I.R are bailable except Section 337-F(v), same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C as the punishment provided for Section 337(v) Cr.P.C is upto five years; that the enmity is admitted in the F.I.R and on the basis of such personal grudge and mala fide intention, the applicant has been booked by the complainant; co-accused Muhammad Khair and three other accused have already  been admitted to bail by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad. Learned counsel lastly prays that the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant may be confirmed.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General in view of the aforementioned submissions has conceded for the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of interim pre-arrest bail stating that the name of the applicant transpires in the F.I.R with specific role.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record and the police file with the assistance of learned Deputy Prosecutor General.

7.  A perusal of FIR reveals that there is un-explained inordinate delay of four days in its lodgment. The incident took place on 21.07.2020 and the F.I.R was registered on 25.07.2020 at 0800 hours; the enmity is admitted in the F.I.R and admittedly the offence for which the applicant is charged, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The grant of bail in cases covered under the said provision is rule and refusal is an exception. Reliance is placed in cases of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and Muhammad Tanveer V. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 733).

8. The delay in lodging the F.I.R has not been explained properly by the complainant, which creates some doubt in the prosecution case. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of bail and the same is to be decided tentatively. From the tentative assessment of material available on record coupled with no objection given by the Deputy Prosecutor General, the applicant has made out his case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, instant bail application is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant vide order dated 21.08.2020 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

9. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

J U D G E

Abdul Salam/P.A