IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Present;

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 327 of 2021

Applicant : Tanveer Ahmed alias Tanveer S/o Manzoor Ahmed alias Manzoor

Labano Through Mr. Muhammad Naseer Chachar Advocate

Complainant : Lal Muhammad through Mr. Ali Murad Malano Advocate

Respondent : The State

Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

Dated of hearing: 23.09.2021

Date of order : 23.09.2021

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J – Through this bail application, the applicant/accused seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.215 of 2020 registered at Police Station ‘A’ Section, Ghotki, for offences punishable under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 504 and 34 PPC. The bail plea of the applicant/accused has been declined by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge / (MCTC), Ghotki vide order dated 17.05.2021.

2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, therefore same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence need not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant/accused that the Non-cog report was lodged on 26.07.2020, whereas, the FIR was lodged on 06.08.2020, as such there is delay of 12 days in lodgment of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer has been challenged by the applicant/accused before the Medical Board but due to non-appearance of the injured, the same was suspended; that the offence with which the applicant/accused has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C; that the challan has been submitted and the applicant/accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation. He lastly prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused may be confirmed on same terms and conditions.

4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as learned DPG for the State prayed for dismissal of instant bail application by contending that the name of the applicant/accused is specifically mentioned in the FIR with the role he has caused lathi blows to complainant on his lip and left side of head and he has actively participated in the commission of the offence, therefore, the applicant/accused does not deserve for the extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned counsel for the complainant and DPG for the State and perused the record. Admittedly, the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer was challenged by the applicant before the Medical Board and as per Special Medical Board on three consecutive dates the injured Lal Muhammad did not appear, it was unanimously opined by the Special Medical Board that the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Abdul Rauf Mahar, Medical Officer Taluka Hospital, Ghotki is kept on abeyance / suspended and the medical certificate has lost its legal validity. On query of the Court, learned counsel for the complainant admits that the injured / complainant Lal Muhammad has gone to Saudi Arabia for laboring purpose, therefore, he did not appear before the Special Medical Board. There is delay of 12 days in lodgment of the FIR, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused pleaded malafides on the part of the complainant. The offence with which the applicant/accused has been charged does not come within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has succeeded to make-out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the instant bail application is allowed and the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused by this Court vide dated 03.06.2021 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

6. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the trial.

Judge

ARBROHI