THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
1st Criminal Bail Application No.S-595 of 2022
Applicant: Jinsar Ali Jagirani, through Syed Kazim Raza Shah, Advocate.
Complainant: Hajan, present in person alongwith injured Mst. Sardar Khatoon.
Respondent: The State
Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Date of hearing: 09.02.2023
Date of Order: 09.02.2023
O R D E R
ZULFIQUAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Jinsar Ali son of Muhammad Soomar Jagirani seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 24/2022, offence under Sections 337-A(i)(ii), 337-F(i), 504 & 34 P.P.C. of the Police Station Gerelo. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was dismissed by the Court of III-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 12.11.2022; hence he filed instant Criminal Bail Application.
2. The facts of the F.I.R. are mentioned in the memo of bail application and the copy of F.I.R. is also attached with the bail application, hence, need not to reproduce the same here.
3. It is contended by learned counsel that there is delay of seven days in registration of F.I.R. and the same has not been explained by the complainant. He next contended that as per medical certificate the injury attributed to the applicant carries punishment upto five years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. and the applicant is first offender and no like nature case has been registered against him, therefore, he prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused may be confirmed.
4. The complainant and injured Mst. Sardar Khatoon appeared before the Court and have opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused by stating that he has caused lathi blow to injured Sardar Khatoon and such injury has been supported by the medical certificate.
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, in view of submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant has raised no objection for confirmation of bail particularly on the ground that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C and grant of bail is rule and its refusal is exception.
6. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. Admittedly there is delay of seven days in registration of the F.I.R. and on perusal of contents of F.I.R. the delay has not been satisfactorily explained; however, the same would be decided at the trial after recording evidence. Furthermore, the offence for which the applicant/accused involved carries punishment upto five years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. 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.
7. 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 08.12.2022 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
8. 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