ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.
Cr. Misc. Appln. No. S- 287 of 2023.
Date of hearing Order with signature of Judge.
1.For orders on office objections as flag A.
2.For orders on M.A. No.3878 of 2023.
3.For hearing of main case.
26.12.2023.
None present. Same was the position on last many consecutive dates. Parusal of file reveals that the applicant/complainant had presented instant application in the office of on 02.09.2023. On 06.10.2023 no one appeared however, Mr.Rafique Ahmed Abro held brief for Mr.Safdar Ali Ghouri on the ground that latter learned counsel was busy before other Bench, therefore, it was adjourned to a date to be fixed by the office. Again on 17.11.2023 no one effected his appearance on behalf of applicant, therefore, it was adjourned. Again on 08.12.2023 the brief was held on behalf of counsel on the ground that learned counsel was out of station. Today neither the complainant nor his counsel are present without intimation.
It appears that respondent Sardar Tanwri was arrested in Crime No.65 of 2023 P.S A-Section Thul under Section 337-A(i), F(i), F(v), L(ii), 504, 506/2, 148, 149 PPC. After submission of challan same is being tried by the Court of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Thul/trial Court. The respondent No.1 filed post arrest bail application under Section 497 Cr.P.C before the trial Court which was declined by means of order dated 12.7.2023, hence he filed bail application No.741 of 2023 before the Court of Sessions which subsequently was assigned to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thul where it was allowed on 19.8.2023.
Application in hand has been directed against said order dated 19.8.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thul vide Cr. Bail Appln. No.S-741 of 2023 re: Sardar Tanwri v. The State, whereby respondent No.1 was granted bail for the offences punishable under Section 337-A(i), F(i), F(v), L(ii), 504, 506/2, 148, 149 PPC. The offences with which respondent No.1 charged carries maximum punishment of five years. Besides, no severe injury is assigned to have been caused by the respondent No.1 to the injured which may have been declared by Medico Legal Officer to be fatal for the life of injured. In such eventuality seeking cancellation of bail will be against norms of settled practice as well as law.
Before parting with the order, it will be appropriate to reproduce the concluding paragraph of the impugned order which reads as under:
“I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for complainant and the learned DDPP for the state and perused the material available before me. I am convinced to grant bail to the applicant/accused for the following reasons:
1. The injury attributed to the applicant is bailable.
2. Co-accused Irfan son of Sohrab and Wajid Ali shown as Wajid both by caste Tanwari have already been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court, hence, rule of consistency also applies in case of the applicant .
3. Injuries punishable under section 337-Ai, Fi are bailable.°
4. The offence punishable under section 504, 337-Fv & 506/2 do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The injuries attributed to the applicant accused are not caused on vital parts of body of the complainant. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Muhammad Tanveer versus the State and another (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733), that refusing bail by subordinate Courts in the cases not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C on feeble grounds should come to an end and further observed that grant of bail in offences not falling within prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C was a rule and refusal an exception, and issued directions to all subordinate Courts, Special Courts and tribunals should follow said principle in its letter and spirit.”
Consequently and in view of above, instant application merits no consideration. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed in limine alongwith pending applications, if any.
JUDGE
shabir