ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-589 of 2020

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

           

 

1.    For orders on office objection at flag `A`

2.    For hearing of bail application

 

11-03-2021

                     

Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Junejo, advocate for the applicants

Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo, Advocate for the complainant

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Addl. P.G

                                                O R D E R

 

Nazar Akbar, J:-   Through this application, applicants Rabel Ahmed and Uzair seek pre-arrest in Crime No.109/2020, registered at Police Station Salehpat, under sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506/2, 114, 324, 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 337-A(i) PPC.    

2.                  The concise facts of the  prosecution case are that complainant Lal Dino lodged report that accused were annoyed with them on issue of restraining them from passing through their houses.  On 04.09.2020 at 9.00 a.m   applicant Rabel with iron rod and applicant Uzair Ali with hatchet along with rest of the accused duly armed with pistol, lathi and hatchet came at the house of complainant and on the instigation of accused Ghulam Qadir  attacked upon the complainant party; accused Rabel caused iron rod blow on  the head of  injured PW Ahsan who fell down on the ground and accused Uzair caused hatchet blow  to Johar Abbas  at his left arm and head  while rest of the accused caused lathi blows to other person of the complainant party.  

3.                  Learned Counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants  are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with ulterior motives; that there is delay of  14 days in lodging of FIR  which has not been plausibly explained; that all the members of one family have been implicated with malafide intention; that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants/accused; that all the PWs are closed relatives of complainant, hence they are interested; that some of the co-accused have been granted bail as such on the rule of consistency applicants are also entitled for concession of pre-arrest bail.He lastly prayed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail to the applicants.

4.                  On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant opposed confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail to the applicants and contended that both the applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to injured Ahsan Ali and Johar Abbas supported by medical evidence; that delay in lodging of FIR has been fully explained by the complainant; that there is no malafide on the part of complainant to falsely implicate the applicants. In support of his contention he relied on 2020 SCMR 1278, 2005 SCMR 1496, 2008 SCMR 678 and SBLR 2017 Sindh 878.

5.                  Leaned Addl. P.G  supported the contentions of the counsel for complainant and opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail to applicants.

 6.                 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the applicants have been nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to injured Ahsan Ali and Johar Abbas.  As per contents of FIR accused Rabel has caused injuries with iron  on the head of  injured Ahsan Ali  which as per MLO  falls u/s 337-A(v) and         337-A(vi) and carry punishment for fourteen years. While applicant Uzair is alleged to have caused injuries with hatchet to injured Johar Abbas on his arm and head which as per MLO falls u/s 337-(i) and 337(v) PPC.  So far the question of delay in logging of FIR is concerned, it has been explained by the complainant in FIR that they had been busy in treatment as after obtaining letter for treatment they went to taluka hospital Rohri, from where they were  referred to Civil Hospital Sukkur and then to Jinnah Hospital Karachi. The question of delay in lodging of FIR would be matter of deeper appraisal of evidence and it will not be proper to express any opinion at this stage. In case of Waqas Ahmad and another vs The State (2005 SCMR 1496) it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

                             “3.      ……………The question of delay in lodging FIR would be a matter for deeper appraisal and it will not be proper to express any opinion at this stage. Suffice it to say that prima facie the maker of the F.IR has given the explanation that the complainant had been attending to his injured brother who was brought first to Hospital at Gujranwala which referred his case to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Since the petitioners have been attributed specific role along with motive, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the well-reasons discretionary order passed by the High Court.”

7.                  So far the contention of learned counsel that some of the co-accused have been granted pre-arrest/post-arrest bail by the trial court is concerned, the record shows that the roles of co-accused who have been granted pre-arrest/post-arrest bail is quite different to the roles of present applicant/accused. Present applicants have been nominated with specific role of causing injuries to injured Ahsan Ali and Johar Abbas which injuries carry punishment up to 14 years while the role of those co-accused who have been granted bail are general in nature and injuries attributed to them are not so sensitive. Therefore, I am of the view that prima-facie material is available on record to connect applicants with the commission offence.  Accordingly, instant bail application stands dismissed and orders of this Court granting interim pre-arrest bail to applicants is hereby recalled.

8.                  The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the subject case on merits.

9.                  The captioned bail application is disposed of in above terms.

 

 

                                                                                        JUDGE

           

Suleman Khan/PA