IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail. Appln. No.S-646 of 2025
Crl. Bail.
Appln. No.S-622 of 2025
Crl. Bail.
Appln. No.S-702 of 2025
|
DATE
OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE. |
1.
For orders on O/objection at flag-A
2.
For hearing of bail applications.
18.09.2025
M/s
Rukhsar Ahmed and Aijaz Ahmed Puno, Advocate for applicants.
Mr.
Muhammad Haseeb Jamali, Advocate for complainant.
Syed Sardar Ali Shah, Addl.
Prosecutor General.
********
O R
D E R
Bail applications No.S-622 and
S-702 of 2025 are pre-arrest bail application whereas Bail application No.S-646
of 2025 is post-arrest bail application. In respect to the applicants of bail
applications No.S-622/25 it is alleged in the FIR that he has led the group of
persons who had caused grievous injuries to the complainant and his associate
whereas in respect to applicants of the other two bail applications it is
alleged that the said persons have caused injuries to them.
Learned
counsel for the applicants contends that ill-will has been shown in the
contents of the FIR by way of background. It is further contended that the
applicant Deedar though alleged to be having the Pistol no use of the same has
been alleged or brought forward. It is further contended that medical
certificate of all the injuries describe the same as within the ambit of
bailable offences. He lastly contended that by way of pronouncements of
Honourable Supreme Court in pre-arrest bail application not only merits can be
touched the availability of bail post-arrest also provides grounds for
entertainment of pre-arrest bail application. He lastly contended that the
final medical certificate in the matter was available when the bail applications
were considered by the learned Sessions Court and not entertained whereafter
approached to this Court has been made.
Learned
counsel for the complainant however, filed statement alongwith record copies
and photographs provided copies thereof to other side contended that day light incident
and grievous nature has taken place. He contended that the applicant Deedar is
involved in other cases and a habitual offender. Learned counsel for the complainant
has also made his arguments in respect to the difference between pre-arrest and
post-arrest bail application contending that malafides are not only required to be alleged they are required to
be shown on the record.
Learned
Additional Prosecutor General however, limited himself to the contents of the
final medical report describing the punishment therein leaving the matter to the
Court will decide.
Having
heard the counsels and gone through the record. The offences as determined by
the final medical report in the matter classified the same as coming within the
ambit of bailable offences and the same are requiring entertainment of bail. The
learned Sessions Court had taken the element of Section 324 PPC being available
and denied entertainment and perhaps it has been over-looked by the learned Sessions
Judge the effective use of the Pistol was never alleged in the matter. In the
said circumstances all the three applications stands allowed. The orders
24.07.2025 and 18.08.2025 in Crl. Bail Application No.S-622 of 2025 and 702 of
2025 respectively stand confirmed on same terms and conditions. As far as the
Crl. Bail Application No.S-646 of 2025 is concerned, the applicants namely, Tarique
Ali, Muhammad Hussain, Shoaib alias Jinsar and Barkat Ali all by caste Morejo are admitted to post-arrest
bail in Crime No.62 of 2025 Police Station, Kandhra u/s 324, 337A(i), 337F(i),
148, 149, 506/2, 504 PPC subject to furnishing their solvent surety in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) each and PR bond in the like amount to
the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Needless
to mention here that observation as above are tentative in nature and not meant
to affect merits of the case before the learned trial Court.
All
bail applications stand disposed of in the above terms.
Office is directed to place a
signed copy of this order in captioned connected matters.
J U D G E
Ihsan/PS.