THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

1^st Criminal Bail No.S-309 of 2022

Applicant:            Ghulam Nabi Magsi through Mr. Azizullah M. Buriro, Advocate.

Respondent:        The State

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

Date of hearing:  17.11.2022

Date of Order:     17.11.2022

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Ghulam Nabi Magsi seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 12/2022, offence under Sections 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 504 & 34 P.P.C of the Police Station Shah Panjo Sultan District Dadu. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mehar vide Order dated 15.06.2022; 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.                Mr. Azizullah M. Buriro, advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant, which is taken on record.  Per learned counsel, the applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that there is delay of 16 days in lodgment of the F.I.R. without plausible explanation by the complainant; that the injury attributed to the applicant is punishable upto five years; that the applicant/accused is attending the Court and he is no required for further investigation; therefore, the applicant/accused is entitled for concession of bail.

4.                On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant accused and submits that there is a dispute over street as the accused has restrained the complainant party not to pass from the street as such this incident has taken place, otherwise the injury attributed to the applicant/accused does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.

5.                Heard and perused. From perusal of record it reveals that there is a dispute between the parties over a common street and the applicant/accused restrained the complainant party not to pass from the said street. On the day of incident complainant saw that in the said street there were barricade/killas and the complainant called his cousin and other relatives to see such a situation and they were standing in the street meanwhile applicant/accused appeared at the place of incident and gave back side of the hatchet/danda blows and other injuries to the complainant.  The ocular evidence finds support from the medical evidence. The prosecution witnesses have also supported the version of the complainant.

6.                So far as the delay in registration of F.I.R. is concerned, the complainant has submitted that after obtaining medical certificate he appeared at the police station and lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant/accused. No ill-will or malafide has been pointed by the learned counsel for the applicant for false implication of the applicant in this case.  Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out the case for further investigation. Accordingly, instant Criminal Bail Application is dismissed having no merits.

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