ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S- 88 of 2023.

Date of hearing                                Order with signature of Judge.

                        1.For orders on office objections as flag A.

`                       2.For hearing of bail application.             

15.5.2023.

Mr. Ashique Illahi Sundrani, advocate  for the applicants.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. P.G

======

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI-J.:-Applicants Manzoor @Janga and Younis @Muhammad Younis seek post arrest bail in FIR No.09 of 2023  registered with P.S Abad District Jacobabad  under Sections 324, 337(i), F(i) and H(i), 506/2, 147, 148, 149 PPC. Their earlier bail plea was rejected by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad vide order  dated 23.02.2023.

2.                    Facts of the case are already mentioned in the memo of bail application, therefore, there is no need of repeating the same here.

3.                     It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the applicants that there is delay in registration of FIR for about 8 hours which has not been explained by the prosecution;  there is no specific role assigned to any of the accused  however, it is alleged that present applicant  Younis alongwith co-accused  Muhammad Ayub  and Essa Khan collectively fired from their respective weapons upon complainant party who fell down and saved themselves  but said fires were hit to their relative Babal  and then all accused caused  sticks, kicks and fists blows to the complainant party; the injuries  received by Babal  are  punishable upto five years;  the recovery of T.T pistol against the  applicant Younis has been foisted; the offence  does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C; the applicability of section 324 PPC  could be determined after recording of evidence; that the applicants  are behind bars and the case has been challaned  therefore, they are no more required for further investigation and keeping them in jail would serve no purpose. He submits that there is previous enmity standing between the parties which is also admitted in the FIR. On all these scores, the prosecution case against the applicants calls for further enquiry. Lastly, he prayed that bail application may be allowed.

3.                     Learned Addl. P.G and learned counsel for the complainant  opposed the grant of bail  on the ground that the delay  in registration of FIR has been explained; that the ocular evidence is fully supported by medical evidence; although there is no specific role assigned to accused,  yet  applicant Manzoor and two  others collectively made fires upon complainant party which  were hit to their relative Babal;  that seven persons  received separate injuries in the fight;  that recovery of pistol has also been effected from  Muhammad Younis which has corroborated the case of prosecution, therefore, they are not entitled for the concession of bail.

4.                    Heard learned counsel or the parties  and perused the material brought on record with their able assistance.

5.                     On perusal of the contents of FIR it reflects that  no specific role has been assigned against any of the accused persons however, it is  alleged  that applicant Manzoor alongwith two other co-accused  collectively fired from their respective weapons  upon complainant party but the same  were hit to their  relative Babal and then all accused collectively caused  sticks, kicks and fists blows to the complainant party,  therefore in order to fix the vicarious liability against each accused the recording of evidence is necessary which is still not recorded in the case. In respect of injury sustained by injured Babal, the doctor has opined in his final medical certificate that injury No.2 is caused by hard and blunt substance while as per FIR there is no allegation of prosecution in respect of any injury of hard and blunt substance. As per MLC issued by the doctor, the injuries sustained by injured Babal is punishable upto five years hence the case does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.  It is  settled principal of law that bail in the cases not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C  is right and its refusal  is an exception. The exceptions for refusal of bail in such like cases are well settled by Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Imran v. The State (PLD 2021 S.C 903). I have examined the record of the case and do not find any material that would attract any of the above exceptions in order to refuse bail to the present applicants. 

6.                    In view of the above, the prosecution case against the present applicants calls for further enquiry and they have made out their case for grant of bail. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the applicants are admitted to post arrest bail  subject to furnishing solving surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/=  each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of  trial Court.

7.                     Needless to say that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature which shall not prejudice case of either side while deciding the fate of the case by the trial Court.

                                                                                                JUDGE

shabir