THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

1^st Criminal Bail Application No.D-35 of 2022

Before:

Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Applicant: Inayat Ali Umrani through Mr. Fayyaz Ali Shaikh, Advocate.

Respondent: The State

Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of hearing: 16.11.2022

Date of Order: 16.11.2022

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Inayat Ali son of Mour Khan Umrani seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No. 84/2022, offence under Sections 324, 353, 427, 506/2, 147, 148, 149 P.P.C read with Sections 6/7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 of the Police Station Civil Lines, Larkana. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana vide Order dated 29.10.2022; hence he 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 applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that co-accused Muhammad Ali Umrani and Muhammad Sharif Umrani have been granted bail by the learned Trial Court; as such the case of the co-accused is at par with the case of present applicant Inayat Ali Umrani and he is entitled to the concession of bail on the rule of consistency. He further added that the injury attributed to the applicant/accused does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. and grant of bail is rule and its refusal is exception; that the applicant/accused is in jail and is no more required for further investigation. Lastly, he prayed that the applicant/accused may be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor General vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant accused and submits that the ingredients of Section 324 P.P.C are very much applicable in this case; that complainant Dr. Junaid Raza was present on duty in his office, where a mob of people attacked upon him, other doctors and paramedical staff, resultantly they damaged the Doors, Air Conditioners, Laptop Computer, Printer, CCTV Cameras, window glasses, iron grill and other property and caused harassment amongst the general public and patients admitted in Causality Hospital, Larkana, if they had any grievance against any doctor, they should have approached the Medical Superintendent or any other administrative officer rather they took law into their hands and the mob decided the guilt of the doctors and in such circumstances, no case for grant of bail is made out.

5. Heard and perused. The case of prosecution is that on the day of incident viz. 23.09.2022 Complainant Dr. Junaid Raza was present on the duty in Casual Hospital, Larkana. During his usual duty hours on 24.09.2022 early in the morning at about 04:00 a.m. one patient namely Mst. Pareesa Umrani was brought by her heirs, who was treated by another doctor and the complainant also provided emergency medical treatment to Mst. Pareesa as she was bitten by Snake. The applicant alongwith co-accused were present there and suddenly started using harsh words to the doctors and other paramedical staff. The applicant/accused Inayat Ali alongwith mob of about 20/25 people armed with lathi, the applicant/accused was duly armed with iron rod and caused iron blow on the face of the complainant with intention to commit his murder. The complainant received iron blow on his left cheek below eye and blood was oozing. The ocular evidence finds support from the medical evidence. The prosecution witnesses have also supported the version of the complainant. No ill-will or malafide has been pointed by the learned counsel for the applicant for false implication of the applicant in this case; as such Section 324 P.P.C is very much applicable in this case and only tentative assessment is to be made at bail stage. Learned Additional Prosecutor General has rightly pointed out that if there was any grievance against any doctor, the applicant should have approached the Medical Superintendent or any administrative officer and it should not be allowed to the mob to decide the case by taking law into their hands. The mob by attacking on the complainant damaged the valuable official and medical equipments. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out the case for further investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, instant Criminal Bail Application is dismissed having no merits. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and conclude the same preferably within a period of 60 days and no adjournment shall be granted to the either party on any flimsy ground.

6. 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