ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Appln. No.S-372  of   2022

Date of Hearing

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 03.10.2022.

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of Bail Application.

M/s Farhat Ali Bugti and Mohammad Ali Jagirani, advocates for the applicants.

Mr. Shafi Mohammad Mahar, DPG.

Mr. Mujahid Ali Jatoi, advocate for the complainant, along with complainant.

                             ---------------------

                   Applicants/accused 1) Parwaiz Ali, 2) Dildar alias Dilo alias Abdul Hussain, 3) Tarique Ali, 4) Faiz Mohammad, 5) Najamuddin, and 6)Gulzar, all by caste Khero, seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No.13/2022, registered at P.S Veehar, for offences u/s 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 114, 504, 147, 148, PPC.  Previously, the applied for the same relief before the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana.  The same has been rejected vide order dated 19.07.2022.

          2.       Learned advocate for the applicants/accused mainly contended that there are general allegations against all the accused except applicant Dildar and injury attributed to him has been declared as Shajjah-i-Mudihah and offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr. P.C.  It is further submitted that there is delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that there is dispute between the parties over the tractor. Lastly, it is submitted that investigation is complete and challan has been submitted before competent Court of law.

          3.       Learned DPG conceded for the grant of bail to the all accused except accused Dilar, against whom injury has been specifically attributed to complainant by means of hatchet.  However, DPG submits that alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.

          4.       Mr. Mujahid Ali Jatoi, advocate for the complainant, opposed the confirmation of the bail to the applicants/accused, on the grounds that there is no malafiede on the part of the complainant to involve them in this case falsely.

          5.       I am inclined to confirm the interim pre-arrest bail of the applicants/accused, for the reasons that incident had occurred on 22.06.2022, at 5.30 p.m. and it was reported to the police after 12 days of the incident. Alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. It is pointed out by learned DPG that investigation has been completed and challan has been submitted. As regards to malafide on the part of complainant, it is argued that there is dispute between the parties on tractor. In the recent unreported judgment in the case of Rana Muhammad Imran Nasrullah versus The State (Cr. Petition No.358-L of 2022) dated 23.08.2022, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that while considering the application for pre-arrest bail merits of the case shall also be looked into. Moreover, offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In such cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. In this case exceptional circumstances are not available. Therefore, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

                                                                                                JUDGE

Qazi Tahir PA*