IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 607 of 2023.

Applicant:                 Niaz Hussain and others, through Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Barejo, Advocate.

Complainant:            Imdad Hussain Teevno, through Mr. Sher Ali Chandio, Advocate.

Respondent:              The State, through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing:        08.01.2024.

Date of order:           08.01.2024.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J: Through this bail application, applicants Niaz Hussain, Hazur, Khatir, Zameer Ahmed, Abdul Malik, Aziz alias Azizullah, Abdul Razzak, Mehar, Sadaqat, Nisar alias Nasrullah, Mehboob and Mumtaz alias Muhammad Ali seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them vide Crime No. 48 of 2023 at P.S Faridabad, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 506 (2),   337-A (i), 337-F (i) P.P.C., after their bail application was declined by 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, vide his Order dated 13.10.2023.

            2.         In nutshell, the case of prosecution is that on 27.8.2023 complainant Imdad Hussain lodged report with P.S Faridabad, to the effect that on fateful day applicants along with seven other co-accused duly armed with guns, “dandas” and hatchets entered house of complainant and caused “danda” and backside hatchet blows to in all seventeen persons. The motive for the alleged incident as set-out in the F.I.R is scuffle with children of accused party by complainant party. 

            3.         Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that, malafides on the part of the complainant party are clear from the fact that he has roped in all seventeen persons from one and same family in this case; that bone of contention between the parties is an abduction of one lady, namely, Mst. Samina, who according to complainant party was allegedly abducted and such F.I.R No. 45 of 2023 was registered by one Soomar Khan Teevno, but in-fact said lady was not abducted by applicants side, as she on her own left house and ultimately recorded such statement before Court of law to the effect she has not been abducted by anybody and ultimately such case was disposed of. Per learned counsel, there are counter cases between the parties and accused in counter case are already on bail; that most of the injuries sustained by the injured persons are bail-able, except only injuries on person of two injured, namely, Muhammad Umar and Khan Muhammad which are falling under Section 337-A (ii) and 337-F (v) P.P.C respectively and the punishment provided for the same is only upto five years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.  Learned counsel further contended that, two co-accused, namely, Abdul Rehman and Ayaz Ali have already been granted bail, as such on the basis of rule of consistency and parity the applicants also deserve concession of bail.  Lastly, learned counsel submitted that applicants have joined the trial and attending trial Court regularly and have never misused concession of interim pre arrest bail. In support of his contentions learned counsel placed his reliance upon 2021 SCMR 2086. 

            4.         On other hand learned Addl. P.G. appearing for the State conceded for confirmation of bail in view of the fact that the alleged offences do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C and that applicants have already joined the trial. 

            5.         Conversely, learned Advocate for complainant opposed grant of application on the grounds that the applicants have been nominated in the promptly lodged F.I.R with specific role of causing multiple injuries to the prosecution witnesses including womenfolk and that there are no any malafides on the part of complainant to falsely implicate the applicants in the case.

            6.         Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Addl. P.G. as well as learned Advocate for complainant and perused the material available on record. 

            7.         It appears from the record that, that there is counter version of the instant case in shape of F.I.R No. 65 of 2023 lodged by Saeed alias Papoo son of applicant Hazur Khaskhelli against complainant party with P.S Faridabad and per learned counsel, who stated at the Bar that the accused in counter case are already on bail. Moreover, most of the injuries sustained by the injured persons are bail-able, except only injuries on person of two injured, namely, Muhammad Umar and Khan Muhammad which are falling under Section 337-A (ii) and 337-F (v) P.P.C respectively and the punishment provided for the same is upto five years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.  It is well settled law that, in the cases not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., the grant of bail is rule and refusal is an exception, and there are no exceptional circumstances for refusal of bail in this case. More-so, co-accused, namely, Abdul Rehman and Ayaz Ali have already been granted bail and their bail granting order has not been challenged by the complainant, as such the rule of consistency and parity would be applicable to the case of present applicants. Furthermore, the applicants have already joined the trial and attending the trial Court regularly. The applicants have been enjoying concession of interim pre arrest bail since 19.10.2023 without misusing the same.

            8.         Accordingly, in view of above position, instant application stands allowed. Consequently, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants vide Order dated 19.10.2023 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

                                                             Judge

Ansari