IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 1250 of
2023
|
DATE |
ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE. |
Present: Mr.
Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Mr. Justice Amjad
Ali Sahito
For hearing of bail application
18.10.2023
Mr.
Muhammad Riaz Abbasi advocate
for the applicant/accused
Mr. Ali Haider Saleem Addl. P.G along with I.O
Mr. Liaquat
Hussain Khan advocate for the complainant
I.O/PI Muhammad Ismal
Jat PS Zaman Town
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Naimatullah Phulpoto,
J.- Applicant/accused
Mst. Hameeda seeks post
arrest bail in Crime No. 76/2022, registered at P.S. Zaman
Town, Karachi for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 380, 337-H(ii), 427,
436, 452 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Prior to this
applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court, the same was
rejected vide order dated 07.06.2023.
2. Learned advocate for applicant/accused
mainly contended that there is delay of about 10 days in lodging of the FIR for
which no plausible explanation has been furnished; that there is dispute
between the parties over a plot; that no incriminating material has been
collected against the applicant/accused during investigation; that application
of section 7 of ATA 1997 is yet to be determined at trial. It is further argued
that mere absconsion would not be sufficient to
withhold the concession of bail. Lastly, it is submitted that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant/accused has not committed the
alleged offence. In support of contentions, reliance has been placed on the
case of Syed Amanullah Shah vs. the State &
another (PLD 1996 SC 241).
3. Mr. Ali Haider
Saleem, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh opposed
the bail application mainly on the ground that the applicant/accused, who is woman
was absconder for about 16 months. Counsel appearing for the complainant
submits that lady accused had caused obstruction in the process issued by the
Court, as such she is disentitled for concession of bail.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the relevant record.
5. We are inclined to grant bail to the
applicant/accused for the reasons that there
was delay of about 10 days for which no plausible explanation is furnished.
Admittedly, there was dispute over the plot between the parties. So far as absconsion of the applicant/accused for 16 months is
concerned, it is settled principle of law that bail
can be granted if an accused has good case for bail on merits and mere absconsion would not come in way while granting the bail.
I.O is present, he submits that applicant/accused is no more required for
investigation and further states that no other
incriminating material
has been collected during investigation by him. Moreover, accused is a woman
and she is in jail since 14.05.2023. It is well settled
law that whenever, reasonable doubt arises with
regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the
truth/probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be
produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of
benefit of bail. Freedom of an individual is a precious right. Personal liberty
should not be snatched away from accused unless it becomes necessary to deprive
him of his liberty under the law. Where story of prosecution does not appear to
be probable, bail may be granted so that further inquiry may be made into guilt
of the accused. Reliance is placed on the case of Syed Amanullah
Shah versus the State and another (PLD 1996 S.C 241). In any event under
the First proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C, in the cases of women accused,
irrespective of the category of offence, the bail is to be granted as a rule
and refusal is an exception in the same manner as it is granted or refused in
offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1)
Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the case of Mst. Ghazala vs. The State and another (2023
SCMR 887).
6. Prima facie,
there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant/accused has
committed the alleged offences but there are sufficient grounds for further
inquiry into his guilt. Resultantly, concession of bail is extended to
applicant/accused Mst. Hameeda wife of
Hashim, subject to her furnishing solvent surety in
the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One hundred thousand) and P.R. bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. Needless to
mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature,
the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same while deciding the case of
the applicant/accused on merits.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Wasim ps