ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.
1st Cr. Bail Appln. No.S- 449 of 2023.
Date Order with signature of Hon’ble Judge
1.For orders on office objection as flag A.
2.For hearing of bail application.
16.10.2023.
Mr. Zafar Ali Malgani, advocate a/w the applicant.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. P.G
O R D E R.
MOHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR-J.:- Through this application applicant seeks his admission on pre arrest bail in Crime No.67 of 2023, P.S Civil Line Jacobabad registered for offence U/S 337-F(v), 504, 34 PPC.
After furnishing surety before this Court the accused has surrendered before the Civil Judge and Consumer Court, Jacobabad vide Criminal Case No. 67 of 2023 re: State v. Ghulam Qasim. Applicant preferred pre arrest bail application before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad which was declined vide order dated 08.08.2023. Hence this application.
Since facts of the prosecution case are already mentioned in the FIR as well as the impugned order therefore, there is no need to reproduce the same.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the complainant is ex-wife of the applicant and due to willful abortion she was divorced by him, hence in order to take revenge of the same, she has maintained false FIR which too is delayed for about 15 days. He next argued that the offence with which the applicant has been charged carries maximum punishment upto seven years therefore, it does not fall within ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Hence he prays for grant of bail.
Learned Addl. P.G appearing for the State submits that though the applicant has been assigned role of causing butt blow to the complainant; however, the offence with which he has been charged carries maximum punishment upto seven years which does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, does not oppose the bail application.
Mr. Adeel Ahmed Abro, advocate for the complainant contended that after grant of interim pre arrest bail by this Court, the applicant/accused has been issuing threats to the complainant and even to him, which tantamount to misuse of the concession of bail. He further contended that applicant himself moved application before the Special Medical Board where after examining the complainant/injured the injury attributed to the applicant has been declared as shajah e munaqillah which is punishable under Section 337-F(vi) PPC. However, he admitted that the punishment provided for said offence is upto seven years which does not fall within prohibitory clause. He; however, opposed the bail application.
Admittedly the incident, as mentioned in the FIR, occurred on 09.6.2023 and the matter was reported to police on 24.6.2023 with the delay of about 15 days for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay. Moreover the injury allegedly sustained by the injured carries maximum punishment upto seven years, hence it does not fall within ambit of prohibitory clause. The case is being tried by Judicial Magistrate where after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses if the prosecution may succeed to prove its charge against the applicant, even then the punishment of more than three years can not be visualized. The applicant being ex-husband of the complainant seems to have been roped in this case due to matrimonial dispute which fact has been admitted by the complainant herself in her FIR.
In the above circumstances and in view of dicta laid down in the case of Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another (PLD 2017 S.C 733), the case against the applicant/accused requires further enquiry. Consequently, instant pre arrest bail application is hereby allowed. The interim pre arrest bail granted to him is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
The application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Shabir