THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail No.S-300 of 2023

Applicants:          1.      Zulfiquar Ali son of Gulab Khan.

2.       Ali Hassan son of Hazur Khan

3.       Saddam Hussain son of Zulfiquar Ali

4.       Wazir Ali son of Hazur Khan all by caste Khokhar.

Through Mr. Muhammad Murad Tunio, Advocate.

Complainant:      Mst. Begum Khatoon Khokhar, present in person.

Respondent:        The State

Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.  

Date of hearing:  27.07.2023

Date of Order:     27.07.2023

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicants/accused seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 41/2023, offence under Sections 337-F(i)(v), 504, 147, 148 P.P.C. of the Police Station Badah District Larkana. Prior to this, they filed such application, but the same was dismissed by the Court of VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 03.06.2023; hence they 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 be 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 applicants/accused are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that the F.I.R. is delayed about six days without any plausible explanation by the complainant and false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out; that there are general allegations leveled against the applicants whereas the complainant has booked near about five persons in this case; that the challan has been submitted and the applicants/accused are attending the Court regularly and they have not misused the concession of bail.  He lastly submits that interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants/accused may be confirmed.

4.                On the other hand, Complainant, present in person, opposed the grant of bail to the applicants/accused. However, learned Additional Prosecutor General has frankly conceded to the grant of bail to the applicants/accused on the ground that there are general allegations against them.

5.                Heard and perused. Admittedly five persons have been booked by the complainant in this case and role assigned to them is general in nature and it is yet to be seen that who has given fatal blow to the injured which will be determined by the Trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence of the witnesses. The applicants/accused are regularly attending the Court and they have not misused the concession of bail, hence they are no more required for further investigation. The offence with which the applicants/accused are charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The grant of bail is rule and refusal is an exception, there is no exception to refuse the bail to the applicants/accused.  Learned counsel for the applicants/accused pleaded malafide on the part of the complainant.  Learned counsel for the applicants/accused has made out case for grant of bail under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C.  Accordingly, the bail application is allowed interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants/accused vide order dated 09.06.2023 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and condition.

6.                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