IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH
AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail
Application No.S-448 of 2023
|
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 30.10.2023
Mr. Abdul
Mujeeb Shaikh, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Ali Hassan
Shar, Advocate for complainant.
Syed Sardar
Ali Shah, Addl. Prosecutor General for State.
***************
O R D E R
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J; Through captioned bail application
the applicants Suhbat Ali and Kashif Ali seek post-arrest bail in Crime No.53/2023 Police Station, Faiz
Gunj for offence punishable under Sections 397 PPC, after their bail was declined by Civil
Judge & Judicial Magistrate Faiz Gunj vide order dated 18.04.2023 and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khairpur
vide
order dated 07.06.2023
respectively.
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. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended
that applicants have falsely been implicated by the complainant with malafide intention
and ulterior motives due to personal grudge; that there is 04 days delay in registration
of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the
complainant; that identification of accused persons is stated to be on the
light of motorcycle which is weakest type of identification; that no recovery
has been effected from the applicants; that applicant No.2 Kashif Ali was
arrested by showing an encounter whereby he received injuries; that final
Medical Certificate was issued by the Medical Officer on 16.09.2023 which
reflects that injuries attributed against applicants is punishable upto 07
years; that there is no CRO in respect of applicant nor empty was recovered
from the place of incident; that injuries caused to the injured is on non-vital
part of the body; that story as alleged in the FIR appears to be false and
fabricated; that main Section u/s 379 PPC is punishable upto Seven years hence,
same does not exceed limits of prohibitory clause of Section 397 Cr.P.C; that
there is contradictions in ocular as well as in medical evidence. He further
contended that deep scrutiny of evidence is not permissible, nor it was the
requirement of law at bail stage. He prayed for grant of bail. In support of
his contentions he relied upon case of Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others v. The State (2017 PLD SC 730).
4. As against, Syed Sardar Ali, Addl.P.G, assisted
by Mr. Ali Hassan Shar, learned Counsel for complainant vehemently opposed for grant
of bail and submits that applicants are nominated in the FIR with
specific role of causing robbery from the complainant party and also fired from
their weapon which hit to PW Zamir and same has supported with the
medical evidence; that there is no enmity of complainant with the applicants to
falsely implicate them, therefore, applicants are not entitled for grant of
bail. Lastly, they prayed for dismissal the bail application of
applicants.
5. Heard learned Counsel for parties and have gone
through the material available on record.
6. No doubt there is delay in registration of FIR but the same
has been explained. Now a days the cases of snatching motorcycles and robbery are
increasing day by day in the area where this offence has been committed. This
is not a simple case of robbery but deadly weapon was used by the accused and
had caused injuries to the victim. Due to increase of such offences in the
society there is need of deterrence. The applicants are allegedly involved in
this case which is heinous one and are liable to be dealt with iron hands. The
case has been challaned and ripe-up for recording evidence. From the material available on
record I am of the view that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the applicants are involved in the case.
7. In view of above, I am of the considered view that the applicants/accused have failed to
make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is
dismissed.
J U D G E
Ihsan/*