IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

Crl. Bail Application No.S-566 of 2022

    

DATE OF

HEARING

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

 

1.   For orders on O/objection at flag-A.

2.   For hearing of bail application.

 

 

Date of hearing          27.10.2023.

 

 

 

Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Korai, Advocate for applicants alongwith applicants Shahzada Toufique and Shahzada Touqeer.

 

Mr. Shahbaz Hafeez, Advocate for complainant.

 

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Addl.P.G for State.

                   ***************

 

                                                O R D E R

 

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J;              Through aforesaid bail application, applicants Shahzada Toufique, Shahzada Touseef and Shahzada  Touqeer seek their Pre-arrest bail in Crime No.170/2022 registered at Police Station, Rohri, for offence punishable under Sections 504, 114, 337A(i), 506/2, 403 PPC, after their bail was declined by Additional Sessions Judge-V, Sukkur vide order dated 31.10.2022.

 

2.       Facts of the case are mentioned in the FIR and copy whereof is attached with bail application therefore, there is no need to re-produce the same.

 

3.       At the very outset, counsel for applicants submits that applicant Shahzada Touseef has gone to Saudi Arabia for performing Umrah and he will return on 1st November, 2023. In this regard he places on record Copy of a Visa as well as other relevant documents which are taken on record. This bail application is pending since long as it was filed on 01.11.2022 and it being old one is not to be adjourned further and under the circumstance absence of applicant Shahzada Touseef is condoned for today.

 

3.       Learned Counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent and have falsely been involved by the complainant due to enmity; that all the witnesses have been examined  and only I.O, of the case is remains to be examined; that per medical evidence the injuries allegedly sustained by PW Nisar Ahmed have been declared by the Medico-Legal Officer as bailable; that the applicants have not misuse the concession of interim bail and are proceeding the case before the trial Court; He lastly submits that all these facts are created dent in the prosecution case and the case is one of further inquiry, therefore, applicant is entitled for confirmation of bail.

 

 

4.       As against, learned Counsel for complainant submits that applicants were nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to PWs; that the allegation made in the FIR is supported by Medical certificate; that the witnesses examined before the trial Court have fully supported the case and their evidence is also support by the Medical evidence. All the witnesses examined and only I.O, is remains to be examined hence, applicants are not entitled for confirmation of bail.

 

5.       Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, learned Additional Prosecutor General submits that case falls within the ambit of further inquiry and there is no allegation that applicant misused the bail, therefore, he has no objection for confirmation of bail.

 

 

6.         Heard arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

 

7.    Admittedly, in FIR there is no allegation in respect of injury No.4 so as to mashirnama of inspection of injuries also does not disclose the same, however, it came on record through a Doctor and that cannot be decided at the stage of bail as being deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible under the law and same is left for the trial Court to decide the same. Per medical evidence the injury allegedly sustained by PW Nisar Ahmed has been declared by the Medico-Legal Officer to be Shajja-i-Khafifah and Jaifah punishable u/s 337A(i) PPC which carries maximum punishment upto Five years and others are bailable, however, neither in the FIR nor in mashirnama of inspection indicates that such injuries are visible on the person of injured. Moreover, parties are on strained relations to each other therefore, false implication of accused out of malafide cannot be ruled out. It is settled law that the bail applications are to be decided tentatively on the basis of material available on record.

 

8.       The upshot of above discussion is that the applicants have successfully make out a good prima facie case for further inquiry within meaning of Sub-Section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, instant bail application is hereby allowed. The interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants vide order dated 03.11.2022 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. The applicants present are directed to continue their appearance before trial Court, till final decision of main case.

 

 

9.       Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not cause prejudice to the right of either party at trial.

 

                                                                 J U D G E

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ihsan/*