ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Crl. Misc. Appln. No. S- 65 of 2021.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

26.04.2021.

1.          For orders on office objections.

2.         For orders on M.A. No. 1123/2021.

3.         For hearing of main application.

            Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijrani, Advocate for applicant-complainant.

~~~~~~~

1.          Over ruled.

2.         Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

3.         Through this application, applicant-complainant Mst. Nehalan Khatoon seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused-respondents Muhammad Luqman, Ali alias Ali Murad and Haji Abdullah by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot in Crime No.90/2020 of P.S Ghouspur registered under Sections 302, 337-F (i), 148 and 149 P.P.C, vide order dated  01.03.2021.

            It appears that the applicant-complainant had lodged a report in respect of an incident occurred on 31.10.2020, alleging that accused persons, namely, Allah Bux, Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Luqman, Ali and Haji having lathis came at place of incident; out of them Allah Bux is alleged to have caused lathi blow to PW Zaheer on left side ribs; accused Abdul Ghafoor is alleged to have caused lathi blow to Zaheer on upper of his left leg; accused Muhammad Luqman is alleged to have caused lathi blow to PW Mst. Nawab Khatoon on her upper part of left arm. Both the injured were removed to police station and after obtaining letter from police station they were removed to hospital and on following day injured Zaheer Ahmed succumbed to his injuries on the way, when he was being taken to Karachi for further treatment.

            It appears that, after registration of the F.I.R, the accused-respondents No.1 to 3 approached learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot with an application for grant of pre-arrest bail; such application was made over to learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, and the accused-respondent No.1 to 3 were granted interim pre-arrest bail on 10.11.20220, and the same was ultimately confirmed on same terms and conditions vide impugned order dated 01.03.2021. The same has been challenged by complainant before this Court by moving instant criminal miscellaneous application.

            I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant-complainant at great length and called upon him to satisfy about any infirmity in the impugned order but he could not be able to show any infirmity in the impugned order and to show any substance for canceling the bail granted to the respondents/ accused. His arguments are mainly that the names of accused-respondents No.1 to 3 are transpired in the F.I.R and the prosecution witnesses fully supported the version of complainant. Learned counsel relied upon cases of Munawar v. The State (1981 SCMR 1092) and Rana Muhammad Safdar v. Gulzar Ali alias Papoo and another (1999 P.Cr.L.J -01).

            Perusal of the impugned Order reflects that the accused/ respondent No.1 to 3 were admitted to pre-arrest bail on the grounds that, none of  them has been assigned any active role of causing injury to deceased Zaheer and those were co-accused Allah Bux and Abdul Ghafoor who are alleged to have caused lathi blows to Zaheer; that role of causing lathi blow to PW Mst. Nawab Khatoon is assigned to one of respondents, namely, Muhammad Luqman and such injury has been declared as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah, which is bailable.  It further appears from the impugned order that as per postmortem report of deceased the cause of his death has been shown as natural death and case was also recommended for its disposal under cancelled “C” class and that the F.I.R was delayed for  about five days.

            Moreover, the accused/ respondents No.1 to 3 have been enjoying concession of bail since 10.11.2020 for a period of more than five months without misusing the same; as such it would not be appropriate that they would be put behind the bars by recalling impugned bail order. Reference in this regard, can be had from the case of Abdul Haleem Lakho v. Abdul Karim alias Karim Bux and others (2005 SCMR 1539); whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while declining the cancellation of bail petition has observed as under:

            “Without commenting on the merits of the submissions and dilating upon the merits and demerits of the prosecution case, which might prejudice the case of either side, suffice it to say that the discretion exercised by the High Court does not suffer from any apparent illegality or arbitrariness. Learned Judge in the High Court appears to have weighed the facts and circumstances of the case carefully for the limited purpose of grant or otherwise of the bail, which does not warrant any interference by this Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. It may further be pointed out that the respondents during the last more than two years having enjoyed the concession of bail without misusing it should not be put behind the bars by recalling the bail order at this stage.

                While declining leave to appeal against the impugned order, we would direct the trial Court to expedite the trial and complete it as quickly as possible so as to finally decide the fate of the case. It may also be clarified that the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by the High Court or by this Court in the backdrop of the prayer for bail or cancellation thereof.”                     

            On careful scrutiny of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge it appears to be justified and not need to e interfered. Accordingly, in view of above, the present application seems to be devoid of merits, which is dismissed in limine. 

                                                Judge

Ansari