THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
1st Criminal Bail No.S-136 of 2023
Applicants: (1). Meer Muhammad son of Muhammad
Usman.
(2). Arz Muhammad alias Malook son of
Muhammad Usman.
(3). Muhammad Raza alias Abdul Razaque
son of Arz Muhammad.
(4). Ahmed Raza alias Ahmed Ali son of Arz
Muhammad.
through Mr. Abdul Rahman A. Bhutto, Advocate.
Complainant: Nazeer Ahmed through Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate.
Respondent: The State
Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Date of hearing: 20.07.2023
Date of Order: 20.07.2023
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicants seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 03/2023, offence under Sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i)(ii)(v), 34 P.P.C. PPC of the Police Station Veehar. Prior to this, they filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 22.03.2023; 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 be 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 due to previous hostility over street, and the complainant has filed various miscellaneous applications before the concerned ex-officio Justice of Peace and other forums; as such he is habitual in making concocted stories. He further submits that the medical certificate issued by the doctor was challenged and kept in abeyance; that the F.I.R. is delayed for about 13 days and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant and false implication of the applicants/accused cannot be ruled out. He further added that the case has been challaned and the applicants/accused are no more required for further investigation. He lastly prayed for grant that interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants may be confirmed.
4. On the other hand the learned Additional Prosecutor General frankly conceded to the grant of bail to the applicants/accused and submits that the injuries attributed to the applicants/accused are declared to be bailable. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail and submits that the accused had conjointly appeared at the place of incident and miserably beaten the complainant; as such they are not entitled to the concession of bail. Further one of the offences is not bailable however, the same does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.
5. Heard and perused. Admittedly, there is dispute over street and number of cases have been registered by the complainant against the applicants/accused and their false implication cannot be ruled out. Further all the offence are bailable except one offence which too does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The medical certificate issued by the doctor was challenged before the Special Medical Board and kept the same in abeyance. Case has been challaned and the applicants/accused are no required for further investigation. No purpose would be served if the applicants are detained. However, learned counsel for the applicants/accused pleaded malafide on the part of the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused has made out case for grant of bail under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed interim pre-arrest granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 28.03.2023 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and condition.
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