ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

1st Cr. Bail Appln. No.S-635  of   2023

Date of

Hearing

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 20.11.2023.

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of Bail Application.

 

Mr. Ameer Ali Sanjrani, Advocate along with applicant (on bail).

Mr. Khalil Ahmed Metlo, Asst. P.G.

ORDER

                        Through this application, applicant Muhammad son of Wahid Bux Brohi seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.104/2023 registered with Police Station Rehmatpur, Larkana, for offence under Sections 506/2, 337-A(i), 114, 34, PPC.  Learned Counsel for the applicant under the cover of his statement of today’s date submits copies of case diaries of trial Court as well as challan. Same are taken on record.

 

            2.         According to the case of prosecution, on 12.10.2023, at 6.30 p.m., the present applicant along with three others, assaulted upon the complainant party and the applicant inflicted lathi blow to PW Abdullah, hitting on right side of his head and then the accused persons went away by extending threats to the complainant party. On 16.10.2023 complainant Javed Ahmed Brohi lodged FIR to the above effect.

 

            3.         After completion of legal formalities, the police have submitted challan, which is now pending for trial before the Court of IV-Civil Judge & J.M, Larkana vide Crl. Case No. nil /2023 re-State v. Aamir & others.

 

            4.         Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and implicated in this case falsely due to previous enmity. He further contends that there is inordinate delay of 04 days in lodgment of FIR without plausible explanation furnished by the complainant. He contends that the complainant has implicated in this case all male members of one family, which shows clear malafide on his part. He contended that except Section 506/2, PPC, other sections applied in the FIR are bailable.  He next contended that after investigation the police have already submitted challan and case against the applicant in the background of enmity between the parties requires further enquiry.

   

            5.         Process issued against complainant is returned duly served and the complainant has appeared in person. Mr. Jam Zohaib Ali advocate files Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant. He opposes the bail application, contending that the applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injury to PW Abdullah, brother of complainant, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail. 

 

            6.         The learned APG does not oppose the bail application, in  view of the fact that the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC. 

 

            7.         I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record with their assistance.

 

            8.         No doubt the applicant is nominated in F.I.R with role of causing lathi injury to PW Abdullah, however, injury attributed to him carries maximum punishment of five (5) years and does not exceed the limits of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The case is being tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, where, after recording evidence, if prosecution may establish its charge, even then punishment of more than 3 years cannot be visualized. The parties, as is appearing from the contents of FIR, are on disputed terms with each other over the footstep being constructed by the applicant in front of his house. Delay of 04 days in lodging of FIR without plausible explanation is also fatal to the prosecution case; moreover the fact that the complainant has implicated the applicant in this case along with his two real brothers is sufficient to indicate malafide on his part. Except 506/2 and 337-A(ii), PPC, all other sections applied in the FIR are bailable. This appears to be a fit case of further enquiry, as contemplated under sub-section (2) to Section 497, Cr.PC. Further, the case has reportedly been challaned and after grant of interim pre-arrest bail the applicant is not shown to have misused such concession, rather he has joined the trial proceedings and is regularly attending the same. 

 

            9.         In view of above facts and circumstances, I am fortified with the dicta laid down by Apex Court in case of Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733); hence, the applicant, in my view, deserves the concession of bail. As such, the interim pre-arrest granted to the applicant on 31.10.2023 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

 

 

                                                                                JUDGE

 

 

 

 

Qazi Tahir/*