ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail
Application No.S-147 of 2022
Applicant: Asad Ali,
through
Mr.
Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, Advocate
Complainant: Muhammad Mashooque,
through
Mr.
Ali Akbar Shar, Advocate
State: Through Mr.
Aftab Ahmed Shar,
Additional
Prosecutor General
Date of
hearing: 18.07.2022
Dated of
order: 18.07.2022
O R D E R
Shamsuddin Abbasi,
J: Applicant / accused Asad Ali, seeks his pre-arrest bail in Crime No.09/2022,
registered at Police Station Sobhodero, for offences punishable under sections 324,
337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-H(ii), 506/2,
504, 147, 148, 149 PPC, after rejection of his bail by learned trial court vide
order dated 28.03.2022.
2. As
per prosecution story on 07.01.2022 at 2.30 p.m complainant Muhammad Mashooque
along with his brothers namely Tahmor Ali, Hatime Ali, Abdul Jabbar and Rustam
Ali were standing in front of their house where they saw that accused Ishtiaque
Husain and others were fixing hedge to their land, complainant restrained them on
which accused said that today they would never spare him and commit his murder,
saying so accused Istique caused stick blow of hatchet to Tahmoor Ali on his
head, who fell down, accused Mazhar Ali caused stick blow of hatchet to Rustam
Ali on his head and left eye, accused Muhammad Sale and Abdul Jabbar caused
hatchet blow to complainant on his head and right hand, accused Kshif caused stick
blow of hatchet to complainant on his head, accused Fayyaz Hussain caused butt
of gun to complainant on his head which hit on his back while other accused
caused blows to them. Complainant party raised cries on which neighbours came running
and seeing them all the accused fled away issuing threat of murder and making
aerial firing.
3. It is
contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is delay of six (6)
days in lodgment of FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished
by the complainant; that no specific role has been assigned to present
applicant and bail has been granted to seven other co-accused who were assigned
specific role on the ground that complainant has given his no objection; that
offence does not come within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C; that
there is recorded enmity between the parties and on the basis of enmity he has
been falsely implicated in this case, therefore he feels apprehension of arrest
at the hands of police with the connivance of complainant. Lastly he prayed for
confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail
already granted to applicant.
4. Learned
Additional Prosecutor General, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant
has submitted that no doubt no specific role has been assigned to the present
applicant but he has shared common intention as such he is not entitled for
extra ordinary concession.
5. Heard learned
counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on
record.
6. Admittedly
there is delay of six days in lodgment of FIR as alleged incident had taken
place on 07.01.2022, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 13.01.2022 and in back
ground of enmity it cannot be that FIR has been lodged by complainant after due
deliberation and consultation. It is matter of record that no specific role has
been assigned to the present applicant and specific role has been assigned to
those who were granted bail. The case has been challaned and no purpose would
be served out to recall his interim pre-arrest bail and then admit him on
post-arrest bail. Sufficient material is available on record which makes out
the case of present applicant for further enquiry in terms of section 497(2)
Cr.P.C. Resultantly interim pre-arrest bail already
granted to the applicant on 31.03.2022 is
hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
7.
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.
J U D G E
Suleman Khan/PA