THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Bail Application No.1396 of 2019

For hearing of Bail Application.

Applicant                    :           Munir Hussain son of Ashraf Ali

                                                Through Mr. Nehal Khan Lashari, Advocate

Respondent                 :           The State Through Mr. Abdullah Rajput,

Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearings          :           06.11.2019

Date of Judgment       :           06.11.2019

ORDER

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J. – Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his release on bail from the trial Court, in Crime  No.215/2019 registered under Sections 337-A(iii), 337-A(i) and 337-L(ii), PPC at P.S. Kalri, Karachi South. Now the applicant Munir Hussain son of Ashraf Ali is seeking his release on bail in the said crime through instant bail application.

2.         The case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2019 at 2200 hours, applicant/ accused Munir Hussain came at house and suddenly annoyed upon complainant and beat her and hit her with his head on her nose, due to said beating she became unconscious, after some time when she was in her senses, she saw that blood was oozing from her nose and she was worried and feared and was not able to look for any hospital for her treatment.

3.         Learned counsel for applicant/ accused submitted that on 19.6.2019 at 03:00 p.m. the applicant/ accused went to his job, at that time the father of the applicant/ accused was sleeping in his room, while younger brother Ramiz was present in his room, at 06:16 the father of accused called him, who informed the accused that your wife and children were not available in the house, therefore, the applicant immediately reached to the house and checked his room almari, and found that cash Rs.3,70,000/- was misplaced and also gold ornaments 08 tola of daughter of his aunty, 6 tola gold of his bhabhi, daughter and mother were also misplaced (total 14 tola gold). It is the case of the applicant/ accused that he thereafter called his in-laws house, but they informed that Amna was not willing to join the applicant/ accused. Thereafter the applicant/ accused filed application to P.S. Kalri against his wife and in-laws on same day i.e. 19.6.2019 due to said enmity the complainant lodged this false FIR. He further submitted that there is 48 days delay without any plausible explanation and applicant is innocent. Under these circumstances, learned counsel has prayed that it is a fit case for grant of bail. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for applicant relied upon the cases of (1) Qasim vs. The State reported in 2018 PCrLJ 795, (2) Zamin Shah vs. The State and another reported in 2014 PCrLJ 624 and (3) Rafiq vs. The State reported in 2009 YLR 148.

4.         Learned DPG has opposed this bail application on the ground that applicant/ accused is nominated in FIR with specific allegation that on the relevant date and time the applicant has caused injuries to the complainant on her nose. Medical Certificate is on record confirms this fact.

5.         I have heard the learned counsel for parties at a considerable length and have gone through the case papers so made available before me.

6.         It is settled position of law that at bail stage deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be gone into but a bird-eye view is to be taken to available record before the court to satisfy prima-facie, whether accused is/ are connected with commission of offence or not. Therefore, under these circumstances, I would like to confine myself to the extent of tentative assessment of the evidence on record.

7.         Perusal of material reflects that applicant/ accused is nominated in FIR with allegation of causing injuries to the complainant, furthermore, there is a specific role assigned to the applicant in the FIR. Prosecution witnesses in their statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC implicated the accused.  Nothing on record that the prosecution witnesses have any ill-will with the applicant. Medical Certificate available in police papers which also corroborated the version of the FIR. Injury attributed to the applicant has been declared by Doctor as dangerous and falls under Section 337-A(iii) of PPC, which is not bailable offence and the same also falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC. Delay if any in lodging of FIR has also been explained plausibly. Even otherwise, delay in criminal cases, by itself, in lodging the FIR was immaterial. Factors to be considered by the Courts are firstly that the delay stood reasonably explained and secondly, that the prosecution has not derived any undue advantage through the delay involved. Delay in lodging of report was material only when there is doubt regarding identity of the culprits or there existed enmity between the parties. Here in this case, complainant is the wife of the applicant, therefore, no question does arise at the moment with regard to identity of the accused. Accused is nominated in FIR. Enmity has to be proved. Case is at initial stage. Applicant and complainant are the husband and wife. This incident appears to be of domestic violence, in which a husband caused injuries to his wife on nose which is the vital part of the body. The incidents of domestic violence are being increased in our society day by day, which are to be curved with iron hands.

8.         It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/ accused is ill and suffering from multiple disease and he is not being properly treated inside jail. In this connection, it is ordered to Superintendent, Central Prison, Karachi to provide all medical facilities to the applicant inside jail and if his treatment is not possible inside jail then he may be referred to any Government recognized hospital for his treatment without fail and such report be submitted before the trial Court for perusal.  

9.         On tentative assessment of evidence on record prima-facie connects the applicant/ accused in this case. Learned trial Court has dealt all the points involved in the bail application quite comprehensively and now before me counsel for applicant was unable to demonstrate, that the order of rejecting bail application of the applicant by trial Court suffers from any illegality or unjustified. Case-laws cited by the learned counsel for applicant have been perused and considered by me but did not find applicable to the facts of the present case, therefore, the same are not helpful for him. Even otherwise, in Criminal Administration of Justice, each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and Courts are required to exercise jurisdiction independently as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of The State vs. Haji Kabeer Khan reported as PLD 2005 Supreme Court 364 and Muhammad Faiz alias Bhoora vs. The State and another reported as 2015 SCMR 655.

10.       In view of the above, this bail application merits no consideration, hence the same is dismissed. Needless to mention here that observation, if any, made herein above are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant/ accused on merits. It is alleged that applicant is ill, therefore, trial Court is directed to proceed the matter expeditiously and decide the same as per law within the period of two months after receipt of this order. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either side. Compliance report be submitted to this Court through MIT-II.

         JUDGE

asim/pa