IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Application No. S-319 of 2024

Applicants:                            Ali Hyder, Rajib, Mukhtiar Ali, Akthiar Ali, Imtiaz Ali and Liaquat Ali.

Mr. Abdul Sattar Janwri, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Shahzado Sodhar, Advocate for the Applicants. 

Complainant:                        In person.

The State:                            Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh

Date of hearing:                    13-01-2025

Date of order:                       13-01-2025

O R D E R

OMAR SIAL, J:- Ali Hyder, Rajab, Mukhtiar, Akhtiar, Imtiaz and Liaquat, all with the surname Khoso have sought pre-arrest bail in crime 131 of 2024 registered under sections 506(2), 147, 148, 149, 504, 337-A(i) and 337-F(i) at the Mehar police station.

2.      Mashooq Ali Khoso, on 02.05.2024, provided information on a cognizable offence upon which the above F.I.R. was registered. Mashooq recorded that he and his companions quarreled with the accused over children. On 01.05.2024, Mashooq, with three relatives, was standing on a road where the six applicants and one unidentified person appeared and beat everybody but the complainant. A strike, each with the weapon they carried, was attributed to each of the accused. The accused then left the premises.

3.      I have heard the learned Additional Prosecutor General who was assisted by the complainant. The applicants’ counsel remained absent and a request for adjournment was made on his behalf. My observations and findings are as follows.

4.      Upon a tentative assessment, I find it unnatural that the complainant would not be hit by any of the accused, whereas his two companions (an uncle and a nephew) were beaten black and blue. The strained relations the applicants had were primarily with the complainant. The complainant’s role seems to have been to stand and watch which applicants hit which person with what weapon, on which part of the body, and in which sequence. Malafide on the part of the complainant in throwing the net wide cannot be conclusively ruled out at this preliminary stage.The case against the applicants is one of further inquiry.

5.      The sections (except section 506/2) under which the applicants are charged are all bailable, where bail should have been granted as of right. An offence under section 506/2, though not bailable, falls within the non-prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Keeping in mind the principles enunciated in Tariq Bashir and 5 others vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), I do not see, nor has any been pleaded, exceptional or extraordinary ground to deny the applicants bail.

6.      Given the above, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants earlier is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

JUDGE