ORDER SHEET

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-14 of 2023

 

 

Applicant:

Muhammad Saleem Soomro.  

Through Mr. Abdul Rehman,  Advocate 

 

Complainant:

Kashif Ali

Through Mr. Athar Ali Bhutto, Advocate

 

 

The State

Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State

 

 

Date of hearing:

20-02-2023

Date of order:

20-02-2023

 

 

 

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through instant criminal bail application, applicant/accused Muhammad Saleem Soomro seeks confirmation of interim pre-arrest-bail in Crime No.17/2022, registered at Police Station Veehar for the offence U/S 447, 337-A(iii), 506/2, 147, 148 P.P.C, after rejection of his bail plea by the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 12.01.2023.

2.                         The facts of the incident are mentioned in the memo of 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.                         It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that there is delay of 17 days in registration of F.I.R, which has not been explained by the complainant properly; that all the prosecution witnesses are closely related to each other, therefore, they are interested in this case; that the F.I.R on face of it seems to be false, fabricated and engineered one, as per medical evidence, there is no mark of any injury on the exterior part of the skin of injured and only inner side of lip is injured and a single tooth is broken, therefore, the ocular version is not supported by medical evidence; that the accused is not previously convicted. He further submits that the case requires for further inquiry. He, therefore, requests for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused.

4.                         Learned counsel for the complainant and learned D.P.G. have strongly opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail on the ground that the present applicant/accused has been nominated in the FIR with specific role that he picked up the stone lying on the road and hit the complainant on his lower lip hence he caused the injuries to the complainant; that ocular version is supported by medical evidence; that the offence U/s 337-A(iii) Cr.P.C is punishable upto 10 years which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C; that there is no malafide on the part of complainant to implicate the applicant in this case falsely, as such he is not entitled to deserve the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.

5.                         Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General and perused the material available on the record.

6.                         A perusal of F.I.R shows that there is delay of 17 days in lodging of F.I.R, as the incident took place on 11.12.2022, however, the F.I.R was registered on 28.12.2022 and no proper explanation for such days has been furnished in the F.I.R. which creates some doubt in the prosecution case. The provisional medical certificate shows that there is fracture in the teeth, however, in the final medical certificate it is shown that teeth is broken which will be decided by the trial court after recording evidence.

7.                         Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of bail and the same is to be decided tentatively. Accused is attending the trial court and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of bail against him.

8.                         In view of above, it appears that the applicant/accused has made out a case for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in view of subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application is allowed. Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 16.01.2023 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

9.                         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

 

Abdul Salam/P.A