IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

1st Criminal Bail No.S-298 of 2024

 

Saeed Ahmed and others

V/S

The State

 

2nd Criminal Bail No.S-542 of 2024

 

Aamir Brohi

V/S

The State

 

Criminal Misc. Application No.S-413 of 2024

 

Mazhar Ali Brohi

V/S

The State

 

Applicants:                                1. Saeed Ahmed son of Noor Ahmed

                                                2. Mazhar son of Noor Hussain

                                                3. Amir son of Khadim Hussain

                                                4. Izhar son of Khadim Hussain

                                                All by caste Brohi

Through Mr. Ahsan Ahmed Qureshi,

Advocate.

 

Complainant:                            Ashraf Brohi

Through Mr. Javed Ahmed Soomro, Advocate.

 

State:                                       Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy

Prosecutor General, Sindh a/w Dr. Nusrat Waggan, Medical Officer.

 

Date of Hearing:                        05.03.2025

 

Date of Decision:                       05.03.2025

 

O R D E R

 

Omar Sial, J.- Saeed Ahmed, Mazhar, Aamir and Izhar, all by caste Brohi (the applicants) are the accused in Crime No. 12/2024 under sections 337-A(ii) 337-F(v) 337-L(i) 504 and 34 P.P.C at the Gareelo police station.

2.       Muhammad Ashraf Brohi on 10.05.2024 informed the police that he has an ongoing dispute over a plot of land with Saeed Ahmed. On 06.05.2024, he, Mukhtiar, and Kashif were standing outside his house when Saeed Ahmed, carrying a hatchet, Mazhar, holding a hatchet, Aamir, carrying a lathi, and Izhar, carrying a pistol, came there. An exchange of harsh words with Saeed Ahmed, drew the attention of the complainant’s sister, Sehat Khatoon, who attempted to intervene. Saeed hit Sehat on her head with the hatchet. Mazhar hit her on the leg with his hatchet. Aamir hit her on her right arm with his lathe. The accused then left the premises. 

3.       Their pre-arrest bail applications were dismissed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana on 20.05.2024. They surrendered before the High Court and were granted interim pre-arrest bail on 24.05.2024.

4.       Aamir remained absent on 16.08.2024, therefore, his interim pre-arrest bail was recalled. He then filed criminal bail application S-542/2024 and was again admitted to interim bail on 19.09.2024.

5.       I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned DPG, and the learned counsel for the complainant. My observations are as follows.

6.       No satisfactory explanation is on record at the moment to justify the four-day delay in lodging the FIR, although the complainant claims that the time was spent treating the injured lady. This does not, however, explain why the occurrence could not have been reported to the police earlier.

7.       The lady doctor who examined the injured lady on 06.05.2024, issued the medical certificate in which she stated that Sehat Khatoon had sustained four injuries on her body. This was in line with the ocular version of witnesses. The applicant challenged the certificate and a special medical board was constituted to examine her. The Board on 31.07.2024 issued its report which held that some of the observations made by the lady doctor in the report she issued were incorrect. The lady doctor was summoned by this court who took the position that she had seen four injuries. However, she could not explain why the medical board had reached a different conclusion. I find this surprising as she also admitted that she was present before the medical board and had also been questioned by them. Given the admitted enmity between the parties and bad blood, I am unable to exclude ulterior motive, at this preliminary stage, to the extent that either the net was thrown wide or the injuries were exaggerated. Ofcourse, the learned trial court will give a definite finding after it has had an opportunity to review the evidence led. The case against the applicants appears to be one of further inquiry at this stage.

8.       The offences with which the applicants have been charged are either bailable or fall within the non-prohibitory clause of 497 Cr.P.C. No purpose will be served by keeping the applicant(s) behind bars. I do not see any exceptional reason to deny them bail.

9.       Learned counsel for the complainant argued that Aamir’s initial bail was dismissed for non-prosecution. And therefore, his remedy now lies before the Supreme Court. I have considered his argument. However, Aamir was on interim pre-arrest bail when he did not appear on one date and that non-appearance was because he had been arrested in another case and not due to his own volition. Due to this reason, I have entertained his bail application.

10.     Mazhar seems to have absconded as he was allowed to surrender before the trial court. However, he did not surrender himself and subsequently did not even appear before this Court. Learned counsel for the remaining applicants could not explain his absence. 

11.     Given the above:

(i)           The bail application of Saeed Ahmed, Aamir, and Izhar is confirmed on the same terms and conditions under which they were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail. As an additional condition of bail, the applicants are restrained from contacting the injured or her family in any manner directly or indirectly. Upon evidence provided by the complainant or the injured that this condition was breached, the learned trial court shall cancel the concession of bail given herein.

 

 

(ii)          The bail application of Mazhar is dismissed.

 

(iii)        The Miscellaneous Application No. 413/2024 filed by Mazhar seeking suspension of NBW(s) issued against him by the trial court is dismissed. 

 

Judge

 

Manzoor