IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Present;

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 416 of 2021

Applicant : Abdul Hameed S/o Muhammad Anwar, Chachar

Through Mr. Sajjad Ahmed Khokhar, Advocate

Complainant : Kouro S/o Muhammad Anwar Chachar,

Through Mr. Sundar Khan Chachar Advocate

Respondent : The State

Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

Dated of hearing: 23.09.2021

Date of order : 23.09.2021

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J – Through this bail application, the applicant/accused seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.74 of 2021 registered at Police Station Ubauro, District Ghotki, for offences punishable under Sections 452, 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337-L(ii) and 114 PPC. The bail plea of the applicant/accused has been declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge / (MCTC), Ubauro vide order dated 28.06.2021.

2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, therefore same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence need not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant/accused that there is matrimonial dispute between the applicant and the complainant, as they are real brothers to each other, therefore, the applicant/accused has falsely been implicated in this case; that there is delay of 05 days in lodgment of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer has been challenged by the applicant/accused before the Medical Board but the injured and the medical officer are not appearing before the Medical Board; that the injuries attributed to the present applicant/accused does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. He lastly prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused may be confirmed on same terms and conditions.

4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as learned DPG for the State prayed for dismissal of instant bail application by contending that the applicant/accused has caused iron rod blow to complainant on his left arm wrist, therefore, he has actively participated in the commission o fthe offence, hence is not entitled for grant of extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. In support of their contentions, they relied upon the cases of Mujahid and 4 others vs. The State and another (2017 P Cr. L J Note-40); Nasir and 3 others vs. The State and another (2018 P. Cr. L J 487) and Muhammad ARif and another vs. The State and another (2020 Y L R 1930 [Lahore]).

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned counsel for the complainant and DPG for the State and perused the record. Admittedly, there is delay of 34 days in lodgment of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. The medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer was challenged by the applicant/accused before the Medical Board, the same is pending due to non-appearance of the injured and medical officer. Admittedly, there is matrimonial dispute between the applicant/accused and the complainant, hence the false implication of the applicant/accused cannot be ruled-out. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has succeeded to make-out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the instant bail application is allowed and the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused by this Court vide dated 05.07.2021 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. The case-law relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances hence cannot be relied upon.

6. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the trial.

Judge

ARBROHI