ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail A. No. S-66 of 2018
Date
Order
with signature of Judge
For
orders on office objection
For
hearing
20.04.2018
Mr. Alam
Sher Bozdar Advocate for the
applicant
Mr. Abdul Wahab Bhutto Advocate for the complainant
Mr. Sardar
Ali Shah Rizvi DPG
.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,
It is alleged that the
applicant while driving truck trailer bearing registration No.JU-8365 in rash
and negligent manner ran over Abdul Waheed, as a
result whereof he lost his life with damage to his motorcycle, for that an FIR
was lodged by complainant Imran Ali with PS Bhirya. The applicant sought for his release on bail by
filing such application. It was dismissed by trial court and he now sought for
his release on bail from this court by way of instant application u/s 497 Cr.PC.
It is contended by
learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has been involved in
this case falsely, there is delay of about two days in lodging of the FIR, all the penal sections applied in FIR are bailable. Section 322 PPC was applied to the case by police
subsequently, that too without any justification, same even otherwise is not
entailing the punishment of imprisonment. By contending so, he sought for
release of the applicant on bail as according to him his case is calling for
further inquiry. In support of his contentions he relied upon case of Tariq Mehmood
vs. The State
which is reported at 2005 YLR 1968,
and case of Yousuf Khan vs. The State which is reported at 2000 P.Cr. L J 203.
Learned
counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by
contending that he at the time of incident was having no valid licence to drive a truck trailer. In support of his
contention he relied upon case of Atta
Muhammad vs. The State which is reported at 2005 P.Cr. L J
1648, and case of Majid Naeem vs. The
State & others which is reported at 2011 SCMR 1227.
In rebuttal to above, it
was stated by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was having
valid licence at the time of incident but it was not
secured by police during course of investigation at the instance of the
complainant party. By contending so, he produced photo stat copy of driving licence of the applicant.
Learned DPG has adopted
the arguments which were advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
I have considered the
above arguments and perused the record.
The FIR was lodged with
delay of two days to the incident, such delay could
not be lost sight of. All the penal sections applied in FIR are bailable in its nature. Section 322 PPC was applied to the
case by police subsequently. Whether the police was justified to apply section
322 PPC to the case on conclusion of the investigation? Such controversy could
not be resolved by this Court at this stage. Be that as it may, there is no
denial to the fact that section 322 PPC is carrying with it, punishment of ‘Diyat’ only. No express provision of law existed to show
that the punishment of ‘Diyat’ would attract the
prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. In these
circumstances, it could be concluded safely that the case of the applicant is
calling for further inquiry which is justifying his release on bail pending
trial.
“The case law which is
relied upon by the counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and
circumstances. In case of Atta Muhammad
the bail was refused to accused mainly for the reason that he was having
driving licence which was found to have been expired
much before the date of incident. In the instant case, the driving licence of the applicant, the copy whereof is produced
before the court is valid up to 11.12.2021. In case of Majid Naeem the main reason for refusal of
bail to the accused was that, it was case of car race in bazaar a public place
whereby five persons lost their lives and large number of persons
sustained injuries. On conclusion of investigation section 302 and 324 PPC were
also applied to the case by the police. The instant matter is not relating to
car race in bazaar and section 302 or 324 PPC are not applied in case even by
police on conclusion of the investigation.”
In view of the facts and
reasons discussed above, while relying upon the case law which is referred by
learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is admitted to bail in the
present case subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/-and PR
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
The instant bail
application is disposed of accordingly.
J
U D G E
Rafi