THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

1^st Criminal Bail Application No.S-286 of 2022

Applicants:          Jam Jumo & 7 others through Mr. Abdul Rahman A. Bhutto, Advocate.

Respondent:        The State

Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of hearing:  07.11.2022

Date of Order:     07.11.2022

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicants/accused Jam Jumo, Jam Jan Muhammad, Mir Muhammad, Zulfiquar alias Zulfiquar Ali, Rajib alias Rajib Ali, Sher Jan, Asghar alias Ali Asghar and Malook alias Muhammad Malook seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 10/2022, offence under Sections 324, 452, 114, 149, 337-F(iii), 506/2 & 148 PPC of the Police Station Miani at Badani, District Kashmore Kandhkot. Prior to this, they filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore vide order dated 02.06.2022; hence they filed instant Criminal Bail Application.

2.                The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application  and F.I.R., same could not gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3.                Per learned counsel, the applicants/accused are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that the F.I.R. is delayed about 20 days without plausible explanation by the complainant and false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out.  He further added that the injury attributed to the applicants/accused is certified to be 337-F(iii) P.P.C, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the said medical certificate/ injury has been challenged before the Special Medical Board by the complainant, but the complainant is not appearing before the Special Medical Board. The case has been challaned and the accused are attending the Court regularly and they are no more required for further enquiry and it is yet to be determined by the trial Court whether they have committed the offence or not.  Lastly, learned counsel prayed for grant of bail to the applicants/accused.

4.                On the other hand one Noor Muhammad, posing himself to be the uncle of the complainant and has no concern with the alleged offence, opposed the grant of bail to the applicants/accused. Learned D.P.G has also vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicants/accused, however, he admits that the injury attributed to the applicants/accused is certified to be 337-F(iii) P.P.C, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

5. Heard and perused. Admittedly, names of the applicants/accused have been appeared in the F.I.R., but no specific role has been assigned to them, however, specific role of firing is assigned to only accused Jan Muhammad who allegedly fired upon the complainant’s sister’s daughter Sanam Khatoon, but as per medical certificate the injury attributed is certified to be 337-F(iii) P.P.C, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497. In such circumstances grant of bail is rule and its refusal is exception. There is no complaint that after grant of bail applicants/accused have misused the concession of bail. Per learned counsel, the complainant has challenged the injury before Special Medical Board, but he is avoiding to appear before the Medical Board. It is the trial Court to see whether they have caused the offence or not and at bail stage only tentative assessment could be made.  Learned counsel for the applicants/accused pleaded malafide on the part of the complainant in view of the previous enmity they have been implicated in this case otherwise they are innocent. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused has made out case for grant of bail under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. The challan has been submitted and the applicants/accused are no more required for further investigation. 

6.                Accordingly, the bail application is allowed interim pre-arrest granted to the applicants/accused vide order dated 09.06.2022 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and condition.

7.                Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

                                J U D G E

Manzoor