RDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-428 of 2024.
Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-480 of 2024.
Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-493 of 2024.
|
DATE OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON'BLE JUDGE |
1. For orders on office objection 'A'.
2. For hearing of bail applications.
02.10.2024.
Mr. Arif Ali Kalhoro, advocate for the applicants along with applicants in Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-428 of 2024.
Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Jokhio, advocate for the applicants a/w applicants in Crl. Bail Appln. Nos.S-480 & 493 of 2024.
Mr. Nizamuddin Bhutto, advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. P. G.
O R D E R .
KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J- Applicants Ghulam Hyder son of Ghulam Siddique & Jaleel Ahmed, son of Ghulam Hyder (in Crl. B.A.No.S-428 of 2024), Kamran Ali, son of Shahnawaz Ali Brohi (in Crl. B.A.No.S-480 of 2024) & Ahmed Nawaz @ Ahmed son of Murad Ali Brohi (in Crl. B.A.No.S-493 of 2024), seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No.17/2024, registered at Police Station Kanga, District Larkana, for offence punishable under sections 337-F(v), 337-A-(i), 452, 504, 34, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 02.07.2024, complainant Muhammad Uris lodged an F.I.R., stating therein that there was a dispute between him and Ghulam Hyder Brohi party over the street on which Ghulam Hyder Brohi remained annoyed. On 18.05.2024, the complainant, along with his wife, Mst. Fatima and her son Muhammad Mithal were available at their house. It was about 07:00 p.m. when 04 persons were identified to be 1)Ghulam Hyder, armed with a hatchet, 2)Jaleel, 3)Ahmed and 4) Kamran, all three armed with lathis, entered the house of the complainant. It is further alleged that on arrival, the accused, Ghulam Hyder, while abusing, said that he would not give his passage in the street and on saying so, he caused a hatchet blow to the wife of complainant Mst. Fatima, which hit her near the palm/joint of her left arm and all other co-accused, caused lathi blows to the wife of the complainant on her head and other parts of her body and blood was oozing, and she fell down while crying. Subsequently, all the accused fled to their homes while using abusive language. It is further alleged that the complainant obtained a treatment letter from the police station and took his wife, Mst. Fatima, to the Government Hospital. After securing a Medico-Legal Certificate, he returned to the police station and filed the F.I.R. regarding the incident.
3. Learned counsels for the applicants contend that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case; that there is a delay of about one and half months in the lodgment of F.I.R, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that prior to the alleged incident an application under section 22-A(6)(i), Cr.P.C was filed by the son of injured Mst. Fatima, which was dismissed and after 3/4 days of its dismissal, the present F.I.R. was lodged against applicants by managing another false story; that sections 337-A(i) and 504, P.P.C. are bailable, whereas section 337-F(v), P.P.C. does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence the applicants may be admitted to pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that there are two separate incidents; one was reported through an application under section 22-A(6)(i), Cr.P.C, whereas the present incident was reported through instant F.I.R.; that the ocular version is supported by the medical evidence; that the injury sustained to injured is declared as Jurh Ghayr-Jaifah Hashimah falling under section 337-F(v) is not bailable in nature.Hence, the applicants are not entitled to extraordinary relief for a grant of pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned Addl. P. G. submits that the general role has been assigned to all the applicants/accused except applicant/accused Ghulam Hyder, who has been assigned the role of causing a hatchet blow to Mst. Fatima, wife of the complainant. Therefore, he has no objection to confirming bail for all the applicants except the applicant/accused, Ghulam Hyder.
6. I heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant, and learned Addl. P.G. and perused the material available on record.
7. The applicant/accused, Ghulam Hyder, son of Ghulam Siddique, is nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role, and hehas caused a hatchet blow to the complainant's wife, Mst. Fatima is near the palm/joint of her left arm. This injury is classified as Jurh Ghayr-Jaifah Hashimah under Section 337-F(v), which is non-bailable. All the P.Ws have supported the case prosecution in their 161 CrPC statement. The ocular version is supported by medical evidence. The counsel failed to justify malafide on the part of the complainant and the police to implicate the present applicant accused in the present crime.
8. Pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy characterized by a limited scope. It may only be granted under circumstances where the applicant does not prima facie appear to have committed a non-bailable offence or where there exists a necessity for further probe into his culpability, as outlined in Section 497(2) Cr.P.C which is prima facie missing in the present case. The primary objectives of pre-arrest bail are to protect individuals from the threat of arrest arising from potential abuse of process driven by malicious intent or malevolence, which has not been demonstrated in the case of the pre-arrest bail of Ghulam Hyder. The reliance can be placed in the case of Rana Abdul Khaliq V/S The State 2019 SCMR 1129.Consequently, Ghulam Hyder's pre-arrest bail application has been dismissed.
9. Reverting the roles attributed to applicants/accused Jaleel Ahmed, Kamran Ali, and Ahmed Nawaz alias Ahmed are of a general nature, and the injuries they caused are bailable. In such cases, the grant of bail is the rule, while refusal is the exception. Hence, their case requires further enquiry as contemplated under section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, all these bail applications are allowed except for the applicant/accused, Ghulam Hyder. Accordingly, interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicantJaleel Ahmed vide order dated 05.08.2024 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. Further ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicant Kamran Ali Brohi and Ahmed Nawaz @ Ahmed through orders dated 26.08.2024 & 30.08.2024, respectively, are hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.Whereas ad-interim granted to the applicant, Ghulam Hyder is hereby recalled
10. All these bail applications stand disposed of in the above terms.
Judge
M Yousuf P/**