THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail No.S-411 of 2023

Applicant:            Sajid Hussain son of Jam Mahesar through Mr. Nooruddin Mahesar, Advocate.

Date of hearing:  31.07.2023

Date of Order:     31.07.2023

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Sajid Hussain son of Jam Mahesar seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 142/2023, offence under Sections 452, 354, 506/2, 337-A(i), 34 P.P.C. of the Police Station Ratodero. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero vide Order dated 26.07.2023; hence he filed instant Criminal Bail Application.

2.                The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the memo of bail application and F.I.R., same could be gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence, need 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 malafide intention and ulterior motives; that infact two ladies were fought with each other, resultantly complainant Mst. Naseem Khatoon received injury at the hands of one lady, when the name of the lady was asked from applicant available in the Court, he remained mum and could not tell the name of the lady who was fighting with the complainant; that there is dispute between the complainant and the applicant over matrimonial affairs and due to such issue the complainant implicated the present applicant otherwise he has not committed any offence and infact he was on duty at the time of the incident. He lastly prayed that the applicant/accused may be granted interim pre-arrest bail.

4.                Heard and perused. From perusal of record it appears that the applicant entered into the house of the complainant duly armed with pistol alongwith two unknown persons and gave butt blows on the head of the complainant, resultantly she received injuries. The complainant further disclosed that the applicant alongwith two unknown police officials entered into her house and pointed the pistol upon her.  During the incident he also torn the cholo/shirt of the complainant and other accused persons including the applicant also seen the naked body of the complainant.  Further since the accused is a police official and the Investigating officer has wrongly mentioned section 354 P.P.C, infact section 354-A P.P.C is applicable in this case whereas section 354-A, P.P.C provides that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman and stripes her of her clothes and, in that condition exposes her to the public view, shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine and in this case the applicant has stripped the clothes of the lady and she was exposed for the public as other co-accused persons had also seen the naked body of the complainant lady.  In such circumstances, at this stage the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail as sufficient evidence is available on record in shape of F.I.R. as well as statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 Cr.P.C.  The ocular evidence finds support from the medical evidence.  For grant of pre-arrest bail essential requirement is malafide on the part of the complainant, for which the counsel for the applicant has failed to disclose any ill will or malafide on the part of the complainant.  At bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out the case for further investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently, instant Criminal Bail Application is dismissed having no merits.

5.                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