THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-615 of 2022

Applicants:          Sajjad and six others through Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate.

Complainant:      Ahmed Khoso, through Mr. Abid Hussain Kalhoro, Advocate.

Respondent:        The State

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

Date of hearing:  17.02.2023

Date of Order:     17.02.2023

O R D E R

ZULFIQUAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicants/accused Sajjad, Imtiaz, Hameed, Mashooque, Jalal, Deedar and Waheed seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 297/2022, offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 337-A(i)(ii), 337-F(i)(v) and 337-L(ii) P.P.C. of the Police Station Mehar. Prior to this, they filed such application, but the same was declined by the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar vide order dated 19.12.2022; hence they filed instant Criminal Bail Application.

2.                The facts of the F.I.R. 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.                Learned counsel submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely involved in this case with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that F.I.R. was registered on false facts; that the applicants were nominated with malafide intention; that the F.I.R. is delayed for about 25 days and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that the alleged injuries attributed to the accused are bailable; the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Lastly, learned counsel prayed for confirmation of bail earlier granted to the applicants/accused.

4.                Mr. Abid Huassain Kalhoro, advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant and submits that the applicants/accused are nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing injuries to the complainant party, therefore, they are not entitled for the concession of bail.

5.      Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, in view of submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants has raised no objection for confirmation of bail and submits that the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.

6.                Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. Admittedly the F.I.R. is delayed about 25 days and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. All the offences with which the applicants are involved do 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 applicants/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 applicants/accused vide order dated 21.12.2022 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