IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Application No. S-320 of 2024

Applicants:                                  Ali Hyder, Muhammad Haneef, 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, Muhammad Haneef, Mukhtiar Ali, Akhtiar Ali, Imtiaz Ali and Liaquat Ali, all with the surname Khoso have sought pre-arrest bail in crime 28 of 2024 registered under sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 504, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(ii) and 337-F(vi) at the Faridabad police station.

2.      Muhammad Moosa Khoso, on 24.05.2024, provided information on a cognizable offence upon which the above F.I.R. was registered. Moosa recorded that he and the accused had quarreled upon which Mukhtiar (one of the applicants here) had registered an F.I.R. against him and others. On 28.04.2024, Moosa and his brothers Abdul Rasheed and Roshan Ali were having dinner at home when the accused, armed with a pistol, a gun, a hatchet, and cudgels came and beat Moosa. 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 whowas 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.      The registration of the F.I.R. is 26 days delayed, which remains unexplained. Although the impact of the delay on the prosecution case will be assessed at trial, at this preliminary stage, the complainant's lack of logical explanation raises doubts about exaggeration and manipulation in his version of events. This doubt is amplified by the admitted long-term strained relations between the parties and the fact that the accused had earlier registered a case against the complainant and his companions. Upon a tentative assessment, I also find it unnatural that a person who six armed men are ruthlessly beating would be able to record which of the accused hit him on which part of the body and in which order. I cannot rule out malafide on the part of the complainant at this preliminary stage. The case against the applicants is one of further inquiry.

5.      The sections (except section 337-F(vi)) under which the applicants are charged are all bailable where bail should have been granted as of right. An offence under section 337-F(vi), 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 applicant bail.

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

JUDGE