IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

Crl. Bail Application No.S-545 of 2019

Crl. Misc. application No.S-865/2019

    

DATE OF

HEARING

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

For hearing of main case.

 

 

Date of hearing              10.02.2020.

 

 

Mr. Sardar Akber F. Ujjan Advocate for applicants.

 

Mr. Achar Khan Gabole Advocate for complainant in Crl. B.A No.S-545/2019 and for applicant in Crl. Misc. application No.S-865/2019.

 

Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi DPG for State.

                   ***************

 

                                                O R D E R

 

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J;               Through captioned bail application, applicants Ghulam Rasool alias Kouro, Rahib Ali and Sahib Dino alias Porho seek Pre-arrest bail in Crime No.131/2019 registered at Police Station, Kandiaro District, Naushehro Feroze for offence under Sections 324, 114, 147,148, 149 PPC. Earlier their bail application was declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro vide order dated 09.08.2019 while complainant/applicant Kamaluddin filed Crl. Misc. application No-S-865/2019 for recalling the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Naushehro Feroze in Crl. B.A No.1008/2019 whereby bail was granted to respondent/accused Noor Mohammad Ghanghro in aforesaid Crime.

 

2.                The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that complainant Kamaluddin Ghanghro lodged FIR on 12.07.2019 at 2200 hours at Police Station, Kandiaro stating therein that marriage of his sister namely Mst. Rehmat Ghanghro who was solemnized with  one Ghulam Rasool alias Kouro Ghanghro, out of said wedlock she has one son and two daughters and he is avoiding to pay maintenance to her thereafter sister of complainant obtained divorce from him  by way of ‘Khula’ through Court of Law and she married to another person namely Ali Hassan Ghanghro. On 10.07.2019 the nephew of complainant (sister’s son) namely Najamuddin aged about 12 years came in the house of his sister to which said Ghulam Rasool alias kouro became annoyed and asked his son why he has come to his mother and maltreated him. He and his sister then appeared at Police Station for report and when they returning back reached at top of Nusrat Canal at about 8:00 p.m.  they saw five persons armed with hatchet they were identified by the complainant party to be Mushtaque Ahmed, Noor Mohammad, Ghulam Rasool alias Kouro, Rahib and Sahib Dino alias Porho came there retraining them not to report to whom sister of complainant asked that she will make complaint against them on which accused Mushtaque Ahmed Ghanghro instigated others not to leave her and will commit her murder. Thereafter, all the accused persons made hatchet blows on her head, arms, legs and other parts of body and she fell down by raising cries, blood was oozing. Complainant thereafter raised cries which attracted relatives of complainant Nadeem Ghanghro and Ikhtiar Ghanghro who seen and identified accused persons while causing injuries and committing the alleged offence, thereafter all the accused persons while causing injuries and committing the alleged offence succeeded to ran away. Complainant then brought her injured sister at Police Station, obtained letter for treatment and after treatment from Taluka Hospital Kandiaro, lodged FIR.

 

3.                Learned Counsel for applicant contends that the applicants have falsely been involved in this case by the complainant with ulterior motives; that there is unexplained delay of about 50 hours in registration of FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; He further submits offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. He lastly submitted that the applicants are respectable persons and unless protected, they would suffer undue harassment and humiliation by stating so, he prayed for confirmation of bail.

 

4.                Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Achar Khan Gabole Counsel for complainant conceded for confirmation of bail while learned Counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific role for causing injuries to one lady; that medical evidence is supported the version of complainant; that though the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C but the same is no ground for grant of bail. Lastly he prayed for cancellation of bail application.

 

5.                Heard arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

 

 6.      Admittedly, the incident took place on 10.07.2019 at 0800 hours however, the report was lodged on 12.07.2019 at 2200 hours after 50 hours delay of the incident but no plausible explanation for such delay in FIR has been explained by the complainant which suggest that FIR was registered with consultation and deliberations.

 

7.       The allegations against all the accused nominated in the FIR are that they all were armed with hatchets and caused hatchet bellows to the injured, No specific injury was alleged against each of accused surprisingly on scrutiny of medical certificate issued by the doctor it is observed that all injuries are of Hard and Blunt substance, this ground alone is sufficient to hold that the case is one of further inquiry.

 

8.       The injuries mentioned in the MLC are punishable up to 7 years and no one received any grievous injury during the incident therefore the ingredients of section 324 PPC are missing and the same is to be decided by the trial court after recording the evidence.

 

9.                It is a well-settled principle of law that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of bail but the material is to be assessed tentatively, from the tentative assessment of material available on record applicants in bail application No.S-545/2019 are make out their case for confirmation of bail therefore bail application is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants named above vide order dated 21.10.2019 is confirmed on same terms and conditions. Applicants shall continue to appear before trial Court.

 

10.          From the perusal of record, it appears that bail grant order in favour of respondent is speaking and passed according to law. It is wel-settled principal of law that once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then very strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancelling the same. Provision of Section 497(5), Cr.P.C is not punitive. Indeed, without having any material before the Court the concession of bail was misused or accused persons absented or avoided judicial process but there is no complaint against respondent Noor Mohammad even learned Counsel has also failed to point out that respondent has misused the concession of bail. Therefore, I am of the firm view that the impugned order dated 19.07.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge; Naushehro Feroz in Crl. B.A. No.1008/2019 does not require interference by this Court. Accordingly, Crl. Misc. application No.S-865 is dismissed summarily. 

 

11.    Bail application and Crl. Misc. Application stand disposed of in the above terms.

 

                                                          J U D G E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ihsan