ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln.  No.S-451       of  2012

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

10.12.2012.

For Hearing.

Mr. Safdar Ali G. Bhutto, advocate for applicant, alongwith applicant.

Mr. Qazi Muhammad Bux, State Counsel.

                             ---------------------

                   Applicant/accused Mehar alias Dhani Bux Lashari seeks pre-arrest bail in crime No.21/2012, registered against the accused on 03.9.2012, at Police Station Nabi Shah Wagan, District Shikarpur, under Sections 337-A(ii), 452, 114, 504, 34, P.P.C.

                   Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in F.I.R are that on 27.8.2012 complainant Ramzan Lashari alongwith his brother Gulshan and brother-in-law Ali Mardan were sitting in the house.  It was about 5.00 p.m.  It is alleged that accused 1) Mehar son of Mour, 2) Sikandar son of Mour, 3) Aijaz alias Ajoo son of Imdad, 4) Wazir son of Sikandar, all by caste Lashari, appeared there and accused Sikandar instigated co-accused by saying that complainant Ramzan had levelled allegation of the theft against nephew of the accused.  At his instigation, it is alleged that accused Mehar caused hatchet blow, which hit to the complainant at his head; accused Aijaz alias Ajoo caused lathi blows to the complainant and accused Wazir also caused him kicks and fist blows.  Complainant party gave the name of ‘Holy Quran’ to the accused persons, then they went away.  Complainant went to the police station, obtained letter for treatment, thereafter went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R.  After receipt of the medical certificate F.I.R was registered on 03.9.2012 against the accused under Sections 337-A(ii), 452, 504, 114, 34, P.P.C. 

                   During investigation accused were found innocent by the police, however, concerned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate did not agree with the report of the S.H.O and ordered for submission of the challan against the accused.  Applicants/accused Mehar, Sikandar and Wazir Ali applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur.  The same was granted to accused Sikandar and Wazir Ali by order dated 28.9.2012, however, pre-arrest bail for accused Mehar alias Dhani Bux was declined.  Thereafter, he has approached to this Court.

                   Mr. Safdar Ali Bhutto, learned advocate for applicant, has mainly argued that during investigation applicant/accused was found innocent by the police.  Medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular evidence.  As per medical certificate in respect of injured, no injury has been caused by sharp-cutting weapon.  He has further submitted that co-accused have been extended concession of pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge.  Alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.  No useful purpose will be served by remanding the accused to the jail on technical grounds.  Lastly, it is argued that complainant had lodged F.I.R with malafide intention due to enmity. 

                   Mr. Qazi Muhammad Bux, learned State Counsel, conceded to the contentions of learned advocate for applicant/accused and gave no objection for grant of pre-arrest bail to applicant/accused.

                   I am inclined to confirm the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicant/accused for the reasons that co-accused Sikandar and Wazir Ali have already been granted pre-arrest bail by learned III-Additional Sessions Judge.  Case of the accused/applicant is more or less same.  Allegation against applicant/accused is that he caused hatchet blow to the complainant at his head.  According to the medical certificate injured had received injury by hard and blunt substance.  Enmity has also been admitted in the F.I.R.  As such false implication of applicant/accused cannot be ruled out.  Alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.  In such cases, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception.  Moreover, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the accused to the jail on technical grounds.  Prima facie, malafide is apparent on record.  Therefore, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

                   Needless to observe that the above observations are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced, in any manner, while deciding the case.

                                                                                                JUDGE

Tahir/*