IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No. S-482 of 2020

Applicant:                                Saindad Khoso,

Through Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate.

State:                                       Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo,

Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing:                       22-10-2020

Date of Decision:                      22-10-2020

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.-   Through the captioned bail application, applicant Saindad Khoso has sought for pre-arrest bail in case, emanating from F.I.R. No.35/2020, registered at Police Station Seeta Road, for offence under Sections 337-F(vi), 337-F(i), 403, 114,34 P.P.C. Earlier his bail plea was declined by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar vide order dated 14.09.2020.

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 delay in registration of F.I.R for about 15 days; that according to the complainant, the incident took place on 30.06.2020, whereas provisional medical certificate shows that the injured was examined on 04.07.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the medical certificate has been managed by the complainant; that punishment provided by Section 337(vi) Cr.P.C is upto seven years and the same does not come within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C; 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. Learned counsel 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. I have considered the submissions of learned advocate for the applicant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have gone through the material available on record and the police file with the assistance of learned Deputy Prosecutor General.

6.  A perusal of FIR reveals that there is un-explained inordinate delay of 15 days in its lodgment. The incident took place on 30.06.2020 and the F.I.R was registered on 15.07.2020 at 2330 hours, the complainant has given some explanation in the F.I.R about such inordinate delay but the same is not satisfactory; 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).

7. The delay in reaching to the doctor has not been explained properly by the complainant, which creates some doubt and so for the medical evidence is concerned, it is for the trial court to decide after recording the evidence of the doctor. 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 22.09.2020 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

8. 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