THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

Criminal Bail Application No.S-275 of 2021

 

Applicant:            Sodhal Khan Pahore through Mr. Atta Hussain Qadri, Advocate.

 

Respondent:        The State

Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

 

Date of hearing:  28.10.2022

Date of Order:     28.10.2022

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Sodhal Khan son of Wazir Khan Pahore seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No. 37/2020, offence under Sections 302, 337-A(ii), F(i), H(2), 148, 149, 114 & 504 PPC of the Police Station Raheemabad, District Shikarpur. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of Sessions Judge, Shikarpur vide order dated 05.08.2020; hence he filed instant Criminal Bail Application.

2.                The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application  and F.I.R., same could not gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3.                Per learned counsel, the applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives due to dispute over agricultural land. The allegation against the present applicant/accused Sodhal Khan is only that he had caused lathi blows to injured Shahzado on his shoulder and right hand and as per medical certificate, all the injuries attributed to the accused are bailable; though he was armed with lathi, but he had not caused any lathi blow to deceased Soonharo. Lastly, learned counsel prayed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.

4.                On the other hand learned D.P.G has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused. The instant Criminal Bail Application was presented on 18.06.2021 since then it is pending for its disposal.  During pendency of this case the progress report was called from the learned Trial Court and as per report the charge was framed on 29.12.2021, since then complainant has failed to produce his witnesses to proceed with the matter.  Today complainant’s counsel is called absent and on the last date of hearing he was also not in attendance.

5. Heard and perused. Record reflects that the role assigned to the applicant/accused is only that he has caused lathi blows to injured Shahazado and as per medical certificate all the injuries attributed to the applicant/accused are bailable; further he has not caused the injury to deceased Soonharo. In the case of Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State (1996 SCMR 1125), the bail was granted to the accused on the ground that despite being allegedly armed with deadly weapons like rifle, gun and hatchet only caused simple blunt injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses using the wrong side of their weapons. The question whether the accused in such a situation shared their common intention with the co-accused who had caused the death of the deceased needed further enquiry.   It is yet to be seen when the evidence would be recorded whether the applicant/accused had shared his common intention to the main accused or not and the at bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused prays that the applicant/accused is in jail and he is no more required for further investigation and his further detention will not improve the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out case for grant of bail under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. The challan has been submitted and the applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation. 

6.                Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/-(Rupees One Hundred Thousands only) and P.R.Bond in the like amount to  the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

7.                Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

                                J U D G E

Manzoor