ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-333 of 2020
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
For hearing of bail application.
10.08.2020.
Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for complainant
Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, caused kicks fists, hatchet and lathi blows to complainant Habibullah and PW Amanullah and then went away by insulting them, for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, has prayed for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 498 Cr.P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant in order to satisfy his dispute with him over plot; there is counter version of the incident, the offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC and co-accused Mujahid Ali and six others have already been admitted to bail by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana. By contending so, he prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide.
4. Learned D.P.G for the State has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant, while learned counsel for the complainant has sought for dismissal of the instant bail application by contending that the applicant has actively participated in commission of the incident.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR has been lodged with delay of more than one month and such delay could not be overlooked; the parties admittedly are disputed over the plot and there is counter version of the incident, which party is aggressor or aggressed upon? It requires determination at trial. Co-accused Mujahid Ali and six others have already been admitted to pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana and the offence is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC, in that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant is made out on the point of further inquiry and malafide.
7. In case of Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others Vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC-730), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that;
“----Ss. 498 & 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(vi), 337-L(2) & 504---Shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah damiyah, ghayr-jaifah munaqqillah, other hurt, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Mala fide of complainant---Offences with which accused persons were charged were punishable by way of imprisonment which did not fall within the prohibitory part of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---When the accused persons were entitled to post arrest bail, their prayer for pre-arrest bail, if declined, would be a matter of technicality alone---Accused persons were likely to be humiliated and disgraced due to their arrest at the hands of the local police---In the present case, it appeared that net had been thrown wider and the injuries sustained by the victims except one or two, had been exaggerated---Seemingly efforts had been made to show that the offences fell within such provisions of law, which were punishable with five years' or seven years' imprisonment---All said aspects, when considered combindly, constituted mala fides on part of complainant party---Accused persons were granted pre-arrest bail accordingly”.
8. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.
9. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.
J U D G E