THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-414 of 2022

Applicants:          Muhammad Ali, Sattar, Akhtar, Nazeer, Mumtaz and Rasheed through M/s. Javed Ahmed Soomro and Ali Asgher Patoojo Advocates.

Complainant:      Riaz Ali, present in person.

Respondent:        The State

Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of hearing:  16.01.2023

Date of Order:     16.01.2023

O R D E R

ZULFIQUAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicants/accused Muhammad Ali son of Allah Warayo, Sattar son of Muhammad Uris, Akhtar son of Mumtaz, Nazeer son of Ameer Ali, Mumtaz son of Inayatullah and Rasheed son of Kamal all by caste Khoso seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 35/2022, offence under Sections 506, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 147, 148 & 504 PPC of the Police Station Faridabad district Dadu. Prior to this, they filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dadu vide order dated 06.08.2022; hence they filed instant Criminal Bail Application.

2.                The facts of the incident are mentioned in the bail application and the copy of F.I.R. is also attached with the bail application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same here.

3.                Per learned counsel, the applicants/accused are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that the F.I.R. is delayed for about two days and no plausible explanation is furnished by the complainant, therefore, false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out.  He further added that all the sections applied in the F.I.R. for which applicants/accused are involved are bailable except section 506/2 P.P.C, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C; that the injury attributed to the applicants/accused is certified to be 337-F(v) P.P.C, which also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. This case has been challaned and the accused are attending the Court regularly and they are no more required for further investigation.  Lastly, learned counsel prayed for grant of bail to the applicants/accused.

4.                On the other hand Complainant Riaz Ali, present in person, submits that he being poor is not in a position to engage the counsel of his choice and showed full confidence over learned Deputy Prosecutor General. Learned D.P.G has frankly acceded to the grant of bail to the applicants/accused by submitted that all the sections are bailable exception section 506/2 P.P.C and the injury attributed to the applicants/accused is certified to be 337-F(v) P.P.C, which also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

5.                Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. Admittedly, names of the applicants/accused have been appeared in the F.I.R., but the F.I.R. is delayed by two days, which is not plausibly explained by the complainant. All the offences with which the applicants are involved are bailable except Section 506/2 P.P.C, however, after final medical certificate one of the injury declared by the Medico Legal Officer as 337-F(v) P.P.C, which is punishable upto five years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The offences for which the applicants are allegedly involved, entailing punishment for less than ten years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC and grant of bail in such cases is rule while refusal is an exception as has been held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases of Tarique Bashir V. State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Zafar Iqbal V. Muhammad Anwar (2009 SCMR 1488), Muhammad Tanveer V. State (PLD 2017 SC 733) and Shaikh Abdul Raheem V. The State etc. (2021 SCMR 822). Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Imran V. The State (PLD 2021 SC-903)     has formulated the grounds for the case to fall within the exception meriting denial of bail as (a). the likelihood of the petitioner’s abscondence to escape trial; (b) his tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses to obstruct the course of justice; or (c) his repeating the offence keeping in view his previous criminal record or the desperate manner in which he has prima facie acted in the commission of offence alleged. Further, Honourable Supreme Court held in the said order that the prosecution has to show if the case of the petitioner falls within any of these exception on the basis of the material available on the record. In the case in hand, the prosecution has failed to establish any of the above ground meriting denial of the application of the applicants. It is also settled by the Honourable Apex Court that deeper appreciation of the evidence is not permissible while deciding the bail application and the same is to be decided tentatively on the basis of material available on the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out case for grant of bail under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C.  Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 24.08.2022 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

7.                Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

                                J U D G E

Manzoor