IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

Cr. Bail Application No.S-498 of 2021

 

 

 

Applicants:                               Safdar Jagirani, through

Mr. Sohail Ahmed Khoso, Advocate

 

 

Complainant:                           Zulfiqar Ali Jagirani, through

Mr. Manzoor Hussain A. Ansari, Advocate

 

State:                                       Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi

Deputy Prosecutor General.

 

Date of hearing:                       13-09-2021

Date of Decision:                      13-09-2021

 

 

O R D E R

 

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through captioned bail application, applicant Safdar s/o Dhani Bux Jagirani, seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.122/2020, registered at Police Station B-Section Khairpur, for the offences u/s  302, 337-F(i), 324, 148 and 149 PPC. His earlier           pre-arrest plea was declined by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC) Khairpur vide order dated 05.08.2021. Now the applicant has approached this court for the same relief.

2.                            As per FIR the allegation against the applicant is that he along with his companions has caused fire arm injuries to the deceased and PWs.  

3.                           Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is delay of 12 hours  in registration of F.I.R and the same has not been explained by the complainant; that the applicant has falsely been implicated due to enmity which is admitted in the F.I.R; that the complainant was present at the place of occurrence but he has not been caused any injury by the accused; that the ocular account is contradictory to the medical evidence; that the co-accused Turab has been granted post-arrest bail by this court on 29.03.2021, as such on the rule of consistency the applicant is also entitled for concession bail. In support of his contention learned counsel placed his reliance on 2008 SCMR 1436 and PLD 2010 SC 585.   

4.                           Mr. Manzoor Hussain A. Ansari Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of complainant. He has contended that the applicant is nominated with specific role in the F.I.R; that the delay has been explained by the complainant; that all the witnesses have supported the version of the complainant in their 161 C.P.C statements and the ocular version is fully corroborated with the medical evidence; that the applicant is fugitive of law and has remained absconder for 30 months though he was in knowledge of the present case as other co-accused are his family members. Lastly he submitted that no malafide has been pointed out by the applicant on the part of complainant. He in support of his contention placed reliance on 2011 SCMR 170, 2009 SCMR 725 and 2009 PLD SC 427.

5.                           Learned D.P.G. adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and has further contended that the case of co-accused Turab who has been granted post-arrest bail, is different from the case of present applicant as according to contents of FIR applicant has caused fire arm injury to the deceased, however allegation against Turab was that he has caused fire arm injury to PW Shahbaz who as per medical certificate has received simply injury. He has placed his reliance on 2020 MLD 763 and requests for rejection of bail.

6.                           I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record with their able assistance.

7.                           Admittedly the name of the applicant/accused is mentioned in the F.I.R with specific role of causing injuries to the deceased; the version of the complainant has been fully supported by the PWs in their 161 Cr.P.C statements; the ocular evidence is supported by the medical evidence; the delay in registration of F.I.R has been properly explained by the complainant in the F.I.R;  no malafide has been pointed out by the applicant on the part of complainant for false implication; the applicant has remained absconder for 30 months; it is well settled principal of law that the court has to make tentative assessment while deciding the bail application and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage.  

8.                           In these circumstances; I am of the considered view that the applicant has failed to make out his case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application stands dismissed and the order dated 11.08.2021 whereby the applicant was granted interim pre-arrest bail, is hereby recalled.

9.                           The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

 

JUDGE

 

Suleman Khan/PA