IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No. S-586 of 2021.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of bail application.

O R D E R.

10-02-2022.

Mr. Mian Mumtaz Rabbani advocates for applicant.

Mr. Achar Khan Gabole, advocate for complainant.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy Prosecutor General.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through the instant Crl. Bail Application, applicant Ali Ahmed Katohar seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 206/2021, offence u/s 324 PPC registered at Police Station Shaheed Murtaza Mirani, District Khairpur. Prior to this, the applicant has filed such application, but the same was turned down by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur vide order dated 16-09-2021, hence the instant bail application.

2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant; that applicant/accused has also lodged FIR No. 135/2021 at PS Kandhra against the present complainant; that applicant/accused is elder brother of the complainant and there is dispute between them over the landed property; that the injured sustained by the complainant is self suffered injury as it is mentioned in the medical certificate that blackening and chairing is found on the injury; that the investigation has been completed and the applicant is no more required for further investigation, therefore, he prays for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.

4. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed for confirmation of interim pre arrest bail on the ground that applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role as he has filed upon the complainant from his back side, which hit at his shoulder, which injury is through and through, hence he is not entitled for concession of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

6. Admittedly the applicant/accused is elder brother of the complainant and there is dispute between the parties over landed property and both the parties have lodged the FIR against each other in order to drag each other. On query by this Court from the complainant that from what distance he has sustained the injury, he disclosed that he has sustained the injury from back side at the distance of 5/6 feet. Medical certificate of injured shows that blackening and charring is found on the injury of complainant and in view of Medico Legal Jurisprudence, the blackening and charring can occurred if fire is made less than three feet. The said injury is also declared as 337F(iii) PPC, which is punishable up to the three years. No exceptional circumstances had been pointed out to refuse concession of pre-arrest bail to the accused. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has pointed out malafide on the part of complainant to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. At bail stage, only tentative assessment is to be considered. The case has been challaned and applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation.

7. In view of above discussion, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out a good case for grant of pre-arrest bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC, hence the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused is confirmed on same terms and conditions. Learned trial Court is at liberty to take action against the applicants, if he misuses the concession of pre-arrest bail.

8. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits.

J U D G E

Nasim/P.A