IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Cr. Misc. Appln. 09 of 2022 Anwar Ali
vs. The State & Others
For the Applicant : Mr. Anwar Mustafa Kamario
Date of hearing : 07.02.2022
Date of announcement : 07.02.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. Briefly stated, vide order dated 22.12.2021, the respondents No.2 and 3 were extended benefit of post arrest bail by the learned court of Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. The applicant, who is a complainant in the relevant case, has challenged the grant of bail and seeks for the same to be recalled. Per learned counsel, the case of the complainant is very strong on merit and there is every likelihood of conviction of the accused. Learned counsel submitted that per the complainant, the evidence, to be submitted, would corroborate the allegations against the accused, hence, the accused are not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
2. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General submits that the learned Sessions Judge has exercised his discretionary jurisdiction and based a tentative assessment of the facts and circumstances considered it appropriate to enlarge the respondents on bail. Per learned Deputy Prosecutor General nothing exceptional has been demonstrated from the impugned order to merit the interference of this court.
3. Heard and perused.
4. The order of bail is not a judgment in respect of guilt or otherwise and merely regulates custody of the accused pending trial. There are settled principles of law governing the grant of bail and in all circumstances the same cannot be denied as punishment, which may only be merited post-conviction, if any. The respondents are before the court and it is their submission that they are participating in the trial judiciously and there is no benefit to be accrued to put them behind bars prior to any determination of liability.
5. This court has considered the impugned order and is of the view that the findings arrived at are well reasoned and borne from the record there before, to which no cavil has been articulated by the applicant's counsel. The order prima facie demonstrates appreciation of the record / evidence and also shows that ample opportunity was provided to the concerned to state their case. Learned counsel has remained unable to identify any manifest infirmity in the impugned order, meriting interference.
6. It is trite law[1] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law.
7. This court is of the view that the applicant has not been able identify any infirmity with respect to the impugned order, hence present criminal misc application is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Judge
[1] Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in Naheed Nusrat Hashmi vs. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323.