IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,
LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 711 of 2023.
Applicant: Ghulam Mustafa and 2 others, through Mr. Razi Khan Nabi Bux R. Chandio, Advocate.
Complainant: Ghulam Rasool, through Mr. Aijaz Ali Kalhoro, Advocate.
Respondent: The State, through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.
Date of hearing: 02.02.2024.
Date of Order: 02.02.2024.
ORDER
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J: Through this application, applicants Ghulam Mustafa, Manzoor alias Shadoo and Asif have sought for their admission to pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 11 of 2023, registered at Police Station Hamal (District Kamber-Shahdadkot), for offences punishable under Sections 337-A (i), 337-F (i), 337-F (v), 114, 504, 34 P.P.C. Their similar request was turned down by learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shahdadkot, vide his Order dated 25.11.2023.
2. In nutshell, the case of prosecution as per F.I.R lodged by complainant Ghulam Rasool is that, on 29.10.2023 the complainant along with his sons Sikander and Anwar was working at their land, as such at about 04.00 p.m. there arrived accused Ghulam Mustafa, 2. Manzoor Ali alias Shadoo and 3. Asif having “lathis”, and on instigation of accused Manzoor alias Shadoo, the accused Ghulam Mustafa caused “lathi” blows to Ghulam Mustafa on his head over left side ear, below left eye and on right shoulder; he started bleeding. Accused Asif caused lathi blows to Anwar on his hand and head, who also fell down on the ground by raising cry. The complainant entreated the accused persons in the name of Holy Quran; thereafter the accused persons went away while abusing. The injured were removed to hospital after obtaining letter for medical treatment and ultimately the complainant went to police station and lodged F.I.R to the above effect.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that, the applicants have been implicated in this case by complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives due to previous enmity between the parties over property, which has been admitted by complainant in the F.I.R; that applicant No.1 and complainant are brothers inter-se and have been disputing each other over inherited property; that F.I.R is delayed for about 14 days without furnishing plausible explanation; that applicant No.2 (Manzoor alias Shadoo) has been assigned role of only instigation, while injuries assigned to rest of two applicants do not carry the punishment, which may fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Lastly, learned counsel prayed for confirmation of interim pre arrest bail.
4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposed confirmation of interim bail in favor of the applicants/ accused, mainly on the grounds that the applicants have been nominated in the F.I.R with specific role of causing multiple injuries to PWs and that the applicants have misused the concession of interim pre arrest bail and attempted to tamper with prosecution evidence by filing a false F.I.R vide Crime No.01 of 2024 at P.S Mehar against present complainant and injured PW Sikander and Mashir Mithal alias Wazir; he has placed on record photocopy of such F.I.R. He relied upon 2023 MLD 107, 2012 SCMR 646 and 2017 MLD 971.
5. Whereas, learned D.P.G appearing for the State while adopting argument of learned Advocate for complainant opposed confirmation of interim pre arrest bail to applicants.
6. From tentative assessment of the record it appears that there is delay of about fifteen days in lodging of the F.I.R. It is well settled law that the delay is falling within the ambit of deliberation and afterthought, therefore, it is always considered to be fatal for the prosecution case. The parties are also inimical terms with each other over landed property. The applicant No.2 (Manzoor alias Shadoo) has not been attributed any injury to any member of complainant party, except only instigation. It further reflects from the record that Sections applied in the F.I.R do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and as per settled law the grant of bail in such cases is rule and refusal is an exception, but there appear no exceptional circumstances for refusal of bail in this case.. Moreover, the applicants have already joined the trial and attending the trial Court regularly. The case is being tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and as such sentence for more than three years could not be visualized.
7. In view of foregoing, the application in hands stands allowed. Consequently, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants vide Order dated 28.11.2023, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. However, learned trial Court is directed to pace-up trial of the case and conclude the same within a period of preferably three months.
Judge
Ansari