ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 362 of 2018

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application

10.12.2018

M/s Zafar Ali Shah and Ather Hussain Abro Advocate for the Applicant

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<

Amjad Ali Sahito, J- Through instant bail application, the applicant/accused Fareed Ahmed Abro, has sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No.34/2018 registered at Police Station Newpind Sukkur for offences punishable under Sections 419, 269, 270, 276, 290 and 291 PPC. The bail plea of the applicant/accused was declined by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur vide order dated 04.06.2018.

2. The facts as per FIR registered on 23.05.2018 by Dr. Pervaiz Akhtar, Senior Medical Officer/ Focal Person Anti-Quackery Tam Sukkur at police station Newpind Sukkur are that on the fateful date, he along with his subordinates Imran Alli Naib Qasid, Mumtaz Bhayo, Chowkidar and PC-3571 Rahib Khan of police station Newpind were on duty for checking the Quacks in New Sukkur, when at about 2230 hours they reached at Sarfraz Dental Clinic Pathan Colony Newpind Sukkur, where he saw that Fareed Ahmed S/o Shah Nawaz Abro was checking the patients, he was acquainted the purpose of his visit and his identity and was enquired about the Degree, who asked us that he shall bring his degree and went out of the clinic and escaped away, whereas, the dental instruments were found available in the clinic, hence he went to police station and lodged the FIR as stated above.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that except Section 419 PPC all the remaining sections are bailable; that the applicant has not committed any offence for which he has been charged as only he was seen sitting in the clinic and he was unaware about the facts; that the case has already been challaned and the applicant/accused is regularly facing the trial. He lastly prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused may be confirmed on same terms and conditions.

4. On the other hand, learned DPG for the State has opposed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, learned DPG for the State and have gone through the record. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant/accused has been charged for running a quack clinic, but he has denied all the allegations, whereas, nothing has been recovered from his possession nor he was arrested at the place of incident where he was allegedly running the quack clinic though the complainant was accompanying with the police constable and his staff. Since the applicant has made out a case for bail, hence in such circumstances the grant of bail is rule and refusal is an exception. The applicant under the above circumstances is entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail, therefore, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 14.06.2018 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. The applicant/accused is directed to appear before the trial Court regularly till the conclusion of trial.

Judge

ARBROHI