IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-706 of 2024
|
Applicants |
: |
Meer Khan s/o Ahmed Khan and Abid Hussain s/o Muhammad Ali |
|
|
|
Through Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, advocate |
|
|
|
|
|
Complainant |
|
Abdul Sattar |
|
|
|
(called absent) |
|
|
|
|
|
The State |
: |
Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State |
|
|
|
|
|
Date of hearing |
|
23-04-2025 |
|
Date of order |
|
23-04-2025 |
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant criminal bail application, applicants/accused Meer Khan and Abid Hussain seek interim pre-arrest bail in Crime No.43/2024, for the offence U/s 324, 337-A(i), 337-H(ii), 458, 337-F(i), 504 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Shah Panjo Sultan. Prior to this, he filed such application but the same was turned down by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dadu, vide order dated 14.11.2024, hence he has filed instant criminal bail application.
2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants/accused are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case; that the F.I.R is delay for six days, which has not been explained by the complainant; that prior to this the alleged injured left the house of her parents, she approached the Police Station and requested to produce her before the court, where her statement was recorded and resultantly she was sent to the safe house Dadu. He further submits that the applicants have not misused the concession of pre-arrest bail. He prays for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. has vehemently opposed for grant of bail and states that specific role for straight fire has been attributed to the applicant/accused, therefore he is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned D.P.G. as well as gone through the material available on the record.
6. From the face of F.I.R, it appears that name of the applicants appear in the F.I.R with specific role that on the date of incident duly armed with repeater and entered into the house of the complainant party and made straight fire upon Mst. Saima. Resultantly she received injury on different parts of body and she fell down, firstly she shifted to hospital Mehar and thereafter for better treatment she was referred to Chandka Medical College Hospital Larkana.
7. At bail stage, only a tentative assessment is to be seen. Ocular version finds support from the medical evidence. The P.Ws including injured have fully supported the version of the complainant and states that accused person entered into the house and directly fired upon her and resultantly she received the injuries in statement the complainant has clearly stated that after treatment she approached at the Police Station and registered the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued on some statement which was earlier recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dadu, wherein she has stated that she intends to go with her family members and when she reached at her house, resultantly the accused persons entered into the house and tried to kill her as such she was saved by the Almighty Allah otherwise they have fired upon her. No ill will or enmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is essential requirement for the pre-arrest bail.
8. In view of above, the learned counsel for applicants/accused has failed to make out case for grant of interim pre-arrest bail in view of subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, instant bail application is dismissed. Interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted vide order dated 20.11.2024 is hereby recalled.
9. 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