IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail Application No.S-82 of 2022
Applicant: Muhammad Nawaz,
through
Mr.
Ghulam Hussain Malik, Advocate
Cr. Bail Application No.S-85 of 2022
Applicant: Faiz Muhammad,
through
Mr.
Nizamuddin Soomro, Advocate
Complainant: Nemo
State: Through
Syed Sardar Ali Shah,
Additional
Prosecutor General
Date of
hearing: 21.03.2022
Dated of
order: 21.03.2022
O R D E R
Zulfiqar
Ali Sangi, J: By
this common order I intend to dispose of captioned two bail applications
arising out of same Crime, filed by applicant Muhammad Nawaz son of Muhammad
Hashim by caste Bhutto (Cr.B.A.No.S-82/2022) and applicant Faiz Muhammad son of
Haji Manjhi by caste Bhutto
(Cr.B.A.No.S-85/2022), who are seeking their pre-arrest bail in Crime
No.07/2022, registered at Police Station Reti, District Ghotki for the offences
u/s 337-F(v), 337-A(ii), 377-L(ii) and
504 PPC. Their earlier bail plea was declined by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge/MCTC Ubauro, vide order dated 14.02.2022.
2. The allegations against the
applicants/accused is that they attacked upon the complainant party and accused
Faiz Muhammad caused soti blow to PW Mukhtiar Ahmed at his head whereas accused
Muhammad Nawaz caused soti blow to Niaz Ahmed at his right arm while accused
Kouro caused soti blow to PW Rafique Ahmed at his head.
3. Learned
counsel for the applicant Muhammad Nawaz has contended that there is delay of about
09 days in lodging of FIR which has not been explained as such registration of
FIR after consultation and deliberation cannot be ruled out; all the witnesses
are closed relatives of the complainant and interested; that the offence does
not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and co-accused Kouro,
Rais Muhammad Ameen, Asghar and Umer
have already been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge Ubauro, therefore on the rule of consistency present applicants are also
entitled for concession of bail.
4. Learned
counsel for the applicant Faiz Muhammad adopted the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for applicant Muhammad Nawaz and prayed for confirmation of interim
pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant.
5. Learned
Additional Prosecutor General has conceded for confirmation of bail on the
ground that the offence for which the applicants are involved is punishable up
to five years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497
Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record with their able assistance.
7. Admittedly there is delay of 09
days in registration of FIR, which has not been properly explained, co-accused
have already been admitted on pre-arrest bail by the trial court and the
offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and grant
of bail in these cases is a rule and refusal is an exception, however, strong
reasons for refusal are required. Reliance is placed on the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (
8. In
view of the above coupled with no objection given by learned APG for the state,
I am of the view that the applicants have made out the case for confirmation of
pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to
the applicants / accused by this court vide order dated 21.02.2022, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.
9. Observations
made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to
either party at the trial.
Office
is directed to place a signed copy of this order in the captioned connected
bail application.
JUDGE
Suleman Khan/PA