ORDER-SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 683 of 2023.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
01.02.2024.
1. For orders on office objections.
2. For hearing of bail application.
Mr. Muhammad Rafique Abro, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.
~~~~~~~
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J: Through instant application, the applicants Gul Muhammad, Amir Ali alias Amir Khan, Imran Ali alias Imran Khan, Waheed, Bashir, and Khan Muhammad seek their admission to pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 360 of 2023 P.S Kamber City (District Kamber-Shahdadkot), registered under Sections 452, 506 (2), 114, 337-H (2), 337-A (i), 337- F (i), 148 and 149 P.P.C.
2. The case of prosecution in a nutshell is that, complainant Mst. Nazir Khatoon lodged F.I.R with P.S Kamber City on 18.10.2023, stating therein that on 02.10.2023 she along with her sons Ali Raza, Aftab Ahmed and other inmates of house was present in the house, as such at about 02.00 p.m. accused Gul Muhammad, Khan Muhammad, Aamir Ali, Imran Ali, Waheed and Bashir duly armed with pistols, “dandas” and hatchet trespassed into house of complainant; out of them accused Gul Muhammad caused pistol butt blow to Aftab, while accused Bashir caused “danda” blow to Ali Raza, thereafter all the accused persons while making an aerial firing and extending murderous threats went away.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that the F.I.R is delayed for more than 16 days. Per him, there has been previous ill-will and grudge between the parties. Learned counsel further contended that there is no any medical evidence on record to support the version of complainant as set-out in the F.I.R. Per learned counsel all the Sections applied in F.I.R, do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Per learned counsel it is well settled law by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the cases which do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, the grant of bail is rule and refusal is an exception. He further added that the applicants have already joined the trial and are attending the hearings of the case and have not misused the concession of interim bail.
4. Learned Addl. P.G half heartedly opposed grant of bail in favour of the applicants/ accused.
5. A bare perusal of the F.I.R reflects that it has been lodged with delay of 16 days, therefore, the possibility of the applicants’ false implication in this case after consultations and deliberations cannot be ruled out and the F.I.R would not be of much sanctity. It is well settled law that the delay in reporting the matter to police is being usually caused due to factors i.e. deliberation, negotiation, discussion, therefore, it is falling within the ambit of deliberation and afterthought, as such it is always considered to be fatal for the prosecution case making the case of accused one of further enquiry. More-so, all the Sections applied in the F.I.R do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and 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 as has held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its numerous judgments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another (supra) has observed as under:
“We are shocked and disturbed to observe that in cases of this nature, not falling within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C., invariably grant of bail is refused on flimsy grounds. This practice should come to an end because the public, particularly accused persons charged for such offences are unnecessarily burdened with extra expenditure and this Court is heavily taxed because leave petitions in hundreds are piling up in this Court and the diary of the Court is congested with such like petitions. This phenomenon is growing tremendously, thus, cannot be lightly ignored as precious time of the Court is wasted in disposal of such petitions. This Court is purely a Constitutional Court to deal with intricate question of law and Constitution and to lay down guiding principle for the Courts of the country where law points require interpretation. That prisons were accommodating convicted and under-trial prisons more than double their capacity and State authorities were involved in transporting such prisoners from the prisons to the Court premises on daily basis for Court hearings which involved risks and extra expenditures from the public exchequer and that grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of S. 497, Cr.P.C. was a rule and refusal an exception, therefore, all subordinate Courts, Special Courts and Tribunals should follow said principle in its letter and spirit.”
6. Moreover, perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses (alleged injured) recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C, show that they in clear terms stated that they have not got medical treatment of their injuries allegedly caused by the accused persons, as such, there is no medical evidence with prosecution to support the version of complainant with regard to injuries caused by the accused persons. Moreover, the applicants have joined the trial and regularly attending the trial Court and no complaint with regard to misuse of concession of interim bail has been brought on record. No purpose would be served, if the interim bail is recalled and applicants are remanded to jail.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the application in hands stands allowed. Consequently, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants vide Order dated 17.11.2023, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.
Judge
Ansari