ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail App. No. S – 386 of 2019

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of bail application

1. For orders on office objections at Flag-A

2. For hearing of bail application

02.09.2019

Mr. Shamsuddin N. Kobhar, Advocate for applicants / accused.

Mr. Muhammad Arif Malik, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy Prosecutor General.

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

Applicants / accused Shahzado, Behram and Gulab have approached this Court for pre-arrest bail in Crime No.31/2019 registered at P.S Dad Laghari, District Ghotki on 28.06.2019 for offences under Sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 34, PPC. Previously, they had approached learned IV^th Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo for the same relief, but it was declined vide order dated 08.07.2019.

2. Learned advocate for the applicants / accused mainly contended that there was dispute between the parties over the turn of water and there was delay of eleven (11) days in lodging of the FIR and not a single injury has been declared as dangerous to the life and alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Serious mala fide on the part of the complainant has been alleged. Lastly, it is argued that a case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out.

3. Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG conceded to the contentions raised by learned advocate for the applicants / accused and recorded no objection for confirmation of the bail.

4. Mr. Muhammad Arif Malik, advocate appeared for the complainant and prayed for rejecting the pre-arrest bail mainly on the ground that injuries have been caused by the applicants / accused to the complainant.

5. I have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. It appears that there was delay of eleven (11) days in lodging of the FIR. It was recorded on the directions issued by learned Sessions Judge / Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. Delay in lodging of the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained. There is also dispute between the parties over the turn of water. From the contents of the FIR, it appears that photographic pictures have been given by the complainant in FIR and during the incident, apparently, it was not possible for the complainant to see / note which of the accused caused injury to which part of the body. Learned DPG has pointed out that accused have joined the investigation. Moreover, alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Serious mala fide on the part of the complainant and police have been alleged. Ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail are satisfied.

6. For the above stated circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants / accused is made out. Resultantly, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants / accused is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

7. Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit