IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Bail Application No.724 of 2018
Applicant : Muhammad Abdul Danish s/o Muhammad Abdul Majid Kamal
through Mr. Tahir Rahim, Advocate.
State : through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh.
Date of Hearing : 17.07.2018
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J : - Through instant bail application, the applicant/accused Muhammad Abdul Danish seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.70/2018 registered at Police Station Al-Falah, Karachi for offence under Sections 337-L(ii), 337-F(v), Q&D Ordinance, after his bail plea has been declined by the learned VIIIth Additional Session Judge, Karachi East, vide order dated 25.04.2018.
2. Precisely, the relevant facts leading to disposal of instant bail application are that the complainant Aqeel Ahmed Khan came at Police Station whereupon SIP Asghar Ali was presented a final medical certificate of Jinnah Hospital Karachi being ML No.2329 dated 14.3.2018 and told that on 14.3.2018 complainant’s brother-in-law Mehboob Ali S/o Ghulam Huzoor along with his wife was gone to the home of his daughter Faiza Gul wife of the applicant/accused at Flat No.207, Masha Allah Garden, Phase-I, Malir Halt, Karachi to bring her, whereupon the applicant/accused refused to send his wife than his brother-in-law Mehboob Ali enquired reason whereupon his son-in-law has become furious and started quarreling by using abusive language and started beating at home. Due to which his brother-in-law has sustained severe injuries with heavy substance, in the meantime, he started beating to his daughter which caused injury at her head and broken her tooth, the incident was reported to the police station Al-Falah on 13.3.2018, whereupon the Deputy Officer of PS has issued letter for medical treatment and medical was conducted at Jinnah Hospital and the final medical report issued by Jinnah Hospital is presented. The complainant has made a complaint against his former son-in-law Muhammad Abdul Danish Kamal S/o Muhammad Abdul Majid for causing severe injuries with heavy substance to his brother-in-law Mehboob Ali and his daughter Faiza Gul and claim legal action.
3. The applicant/accused was arrested and subsequently remanded in the judicial custody, final report under section 173 was submitted before the trial Court. The applicant/accused had moved bail application before the learned trial Court i.e. IVth Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2018, thereafter, the applicant/accused has moved bail application before the Court of VIIIth Additional Session Judge, Karachi East, but his bail plea was declined, hence he has impugned the order of the learned VIIIth Additional Session Judge, Karachi East, dated 25.04.2018 before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused, inter-alia, contended that the applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that the instant FIR is itself doubtful, as the date of incident is mentioned as 14.3.2018 whereas date of incident in column No.6 is mentioned as 13.3.2018 which clearly shows malafide and malicious designs of the complainant party; that the subject FIR was managed and based on concocted story, as final medical certificate was received on 14.3.2018, but the FIR was lodged about delay of 28 years without any plausible explanation; that the offence does not come within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that neither any weapon has been recovered from the applicant/accused nor any description of the weapon has been mentioned in the FIR, which creates doubt, hence requires further inquiry. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant/accused may be admitted to post-arrest bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has relied upon the case of Muhammad Tanveer Vs. The State (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733).
5. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. for the State has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused on the ground that applicant/accused and victim lady remained indulged in a quarrel during married life only due to the accused behavior. According to him, now the applicant/accused has divorced his wife, therefore, the complainant used the word ex-son-in-law in the FIR; that medical report available on record is in support of the victim; that the delay in lodging the FIR is properly explained, which was due to late issuance of final MLR. Lastly, he prays for dismissal of the bail application.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. It is an admitted position that the FIR is delayed about 28 days, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant, there is dispute between the parties over some matrimonial affairs, the allegation against the applicant/accused that he has got injured his wife through hard blunt substance and she seriously injured on her head and face. The final medical certificate shows that the injury described by the doctor as ghaya-e-jaifah hashimah punishable for Daman and may also be punished with imprisonment for the term may extend to five years and the second injury declared as 337-L(ii), which is bailable. The offence with which the applicant/accused is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The applicant/accused, as per record of the case, is neither previous convict nor desperate and dangerous criminal. The occurrence took place due to minor family dispute and the applicant/accused is in a jail and he is no more required for further investigation. Reference may well be made to the case of Muhammad Tanveer Vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in the following manner: -
“13. Once this Court has held in categorical terms that grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. shall be a rule and refusal shall be an exception then, the Courts of the country should follow this principle in its letter and spirit because principles of law enunciated by this Court are constitutionally binding on all Courts throughout the country including the Special Tribunals and Special Courts.”
8. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out a case for grant of post-arrest bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed and applicant/accused Muhammad Abdul Danish S/o Muhammad Abdul Majid Kamal is granted bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
J U D G E