IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
BENCH AT SUKKUR
Present;
Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito
Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 266 of 2021
Applicants : Mumtaz Ali S/o Hadi Bux alias Haddan Fakir and Ghulam
Abbas S/o Hadi Bux alias Haddan, Rid
Through Haji Shamsuddin Rajper Advocate
Respondent : The
State
Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the
State
Dated of
hearing: 23.08.2021
Date of order : 23.08.2021
O R D E
R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J – Through
this bail application, the applicant/accused seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.25
of 2021 registered at Police Station Sorah, District Khairpur for an offences punishable under Sections 452,
337-L(i)(ii), 337-A(i), 337‑H(2), 148, 149 and 506/2 PPC. The bail plea
of the applicant/accused has been declined by learned II-Additional Sessions
Judge, Khairpur vide order dated 15.04.2021.
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 applicants/accused that they are innocent and have
falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant due to enmity over the
landed property, as such there is serious malafide on
the part of the complainant to implicate the applicants/accused in the false
case; that there is delay of one month and twenty seven days in lodgment for
the FIR, for which no such plausible explanation has been furnished by the
complainant; that the alleged offence does not fall within the ambit of
prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C; that challan of the case has been submitted by the police and
the applicants/accused are no more required for further enquiry; that in the
circumstances, the applicants/accused have made-out a case for further inquiry
as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned DPG for the State
prayed for dismissal of instant bail application by contending that the names
of the applicants/accused are specifically mentioned in the FIR
and they have actively
participated in the commission of the offence, therefore, they are vicariously
liable for the offence, as such they do not deserve for the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned
counsel for the applicants/accused, learned DPG for the State and perused the
record. From the perusal of the record, it appears that there is dispute
between the parties over the landed property and there is delay of one month
and twenty seven days in lodgment of the FIR for which no such plausible
explanation has been furnished. The offence with which the applicants/accused
have been charged does not come within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed in the case of Muhammad
Ramzan alias Jani vs. The
State (2020 SCMR 717). Learned counsel for the applicants/accused also
pleaded malafide on the part of complainant that due
to enmity over the landed property civil litigation has been converted in criminal.
The challan of
the case has been filed and they are no more required for the purpose of
investigation. In such circumstances, the applicants/accused have
made-out a case for grant of 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
applicants/accused vide dated 29.04.2021 is confirmed on same terms and
conditions. They are directed to join the trial. It is made clear that if the
applicants/accused failed to appear before the trial Court, the trial Court
would at liberty to take action against them in accordance with law.
6. The observations made
hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either
party at the trial.
Judge
ARBROHI