IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No. S- 780/2021.

Crl. Bail Application No. S-   47/2022.

 

Date of hearing

               Order with signature of Judge

 

Applicants:                1. Ali Murad son of Hamal Khan

                                      2. Allah Dino alias Dinal S/O Bangul Khan

3. Abdul Hameed S/O Muhamamd Hashim alias Hashim

4. Muhammad Qasim alias Qasim S/O Abul Khair.

5. Hakim alias Sonaro son of Ali Murad

                   AND

6. Abdul Qadir S/O Ghulam Nabi, Sundrani

 

Through Mr. Muhammad Ibraheem, Gambir, Advocate.

 

 

Complainant :                Through Mr. Ali Murad Malano, Advocate.

 

The State:                 Through Mr. Zulifqar Ali Jatoi, Additional Prosecutor General.

 

Date of hearing.        10.03.2022.

Date of decision.       10.03.2022.

 

                O R D E R.

               

 AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through this common order, I intend to dispose of pre-arrest bail applications filed on behalf of applicants/accused Ali Murad, 2. Allah Dino alias Dinal 3.Abdul Hameed 4. Muhammad Qasim alias Qasim and 5. Hakim alias Sonaro as well as other bail application filed on behalf of applicant/accused Abdul Qadir, in Crime No.18/2021, offence u/s 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 504 PPC registered at police station Katcha Bindi-1, District Ghotki. Prior to this, the applicants/accused who are on interim pre-arrest bail, have filed such applications for grant of pre-arrest bail but the same were turned down by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-(MCTC) Ghotki vide order dated 20.11.2021 and 31.01.2022 respectively, hence they have filed instant bail applications

 

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 applications, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

 

3.      Mr. Muhammad Ibraheem Gambhir learned counsel for applicants/accused contended that applicants/accused are innocent and they have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity over landed property. He further contended that it is strange to see that accused persons had caused lathi blows to the injured Sardar paternal nephew of complainant which hit on his finger which is unbelievable. Furthermore the allegations against applicant/accused that he put Kalashnikov on the chest of Sultan and due to fear he died but in fact in the post mortem report the death of deceased Sultan was occurred due to cirrhosis live. He further contended that FIR is delayed for about 31 hours for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by complainant. He lastly prayed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused.

                  

4.                Mr. Ali Murad Malano Advocate for complainant as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General vehemently opposed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail and submit that the names of applicants/accused appear in the FIR with specific role.

 

5.     I have heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for the complainant, Additional P.G for the State so also have gone through the material available on record.

 

 

6.      In the case of Khair Muhammad and others v. The State through P.G Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while granting pre‑arrest bail even the merits of the case can be touched upon. No doubt names of applicants/accused transpire in the FIR but the role assigned to applicants/accused and injury attributed to against them does not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Furthermore the allegation against applicant/accused Ali Murad that he put his Kalashnikov on the chest of Sultan brother of complainant, due to fear died but as per the report/letter issued by Dr. Abdul Rauf Mahar CMO Taluka Hospital Ghotki in continuation of provisional post mortem and in the result of chemical examination he opined that death of deceased Sultan was occurred due to cirrhosis of liver as the case of applicants/accused call for further enquiry.  Investigation has been completed and final challan has been submitted. Case of accused persons was one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of S.497(2) Cr.P.C entitling them for the concession of bail. Learned counsel for applicants/accused also pleaded mala fide on the part of complainant with regard to dispute over the landed property is going on between the parties.

 

7.                In view of above discussion, learned counsel for the applicants/accused have made out a good case for confirmation of bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC, hence interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused named above vide order dated 06.12.2021 and 02.02.2022 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

 

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 applicants on merits.

 

9.      The bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.

 

J U D G E

 

Irfan/P.A