ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-761 of 2021

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

           

Applicant:                                  Altaf  and others, through

                                                  Mr. Shahnawaz Khan Sahito,

                                                  Advocate

 

Complainant:                             Ghulam Sarwar, through

                                                  Mr. Aijaz Ali Jatoi, Advocate

 

State:                                         Through Mr.Shafi Muhammad Mahar,

                                                  Deputy Prosecutor General

 

Date of hearing:                         10.01.2022

 

Dated of order:                           10.01.2022

                                                 

O R D E R

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:   Through this bail application, applicants/ accused Altaf, Tasleem, Piyas and Deedar, all by caste Mangneja, are  seeking their pre-arrest bail in FIR No.90/2021, registered at Police Station Sobhodero, District Khairpur, u/s 452, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 504, 147 and 148 PPC. Earlier their same plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat vide order dated 18.11.2021.   

2.              It is alleged that there was dispute between complainant and applicant party over landed property due to which accused persons used to issue threats of teaching lesson to complainant party. It is further alleged that on 14.05.2021 complainant Ghulam Sarwar, his father Mohabat Ali, brother Rahib Ali, cousins Naeem Ali, Khalid Hussain and other inmates of the house were present in the house, at about 11.00 a.m accused namely Altaf  with gun, Tasleem with hatchet, Nadeem and Naseem with lathies, Akhtiar with hatchet, Deedar with lathi, Piyas with hatchet and Dilsher and Meval with lathies entered  in to the house of complainant, started abusing and threatening that they would never spare them and after saying so accused  Altaf caused  butt blow of gun to Mohabbat Ali on his left arm, accused piyas caused handle blow of hatchet on his head, accused Tasleem caused  handle blow of hatchet to Khalid Hussin on his head, accused Deedar caused lathi blow to Rahib Ali on his body and then all the accused caused weapons, lathies and handle  blows of hatchets to complainant party. They raised cries to which neighbors came running and giving hakals as such the accused persons fled away. Complainant brought the injured at Police  Station wherefrom they obtained letter for their treatment and after getting treatment, complainant lodged such FIR.

3.              Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated by complainant with malafide intention. He also contended that there is inordinate delay of about four days in registration of FIR which has not been properly explained by the complainant. He further contended that an FIR bearing Crime No.89/2021 was registered by the applicant against the complainant party in which all the accused nominated in that FIR have been granted bail by the trial court. He also contended that the sections applied in the FIR carry punishment up to seven years and same do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He further contended that the injuries as alleged in the FIR  received by the PWs are not grievous one and this FIR has been registered with malafide intention to make the counter case. Lastly he prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicants may be confirmed.

4.              Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail contending that the applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to the PWs. He next contended that before the trial court first application of the applicants was dismissed for non-prosecution, later on they filed another application which was dismissed by the trial court on merits,  hence the applicants are not entitled for concession of pre-arrest bail. 5.        Learned DPG has conceded for confirmation of bail on the ground that there is delay in registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant properly and the offence for which applicants are involved does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and there appears counter cases in between the parties and complainant party has already been admitted to pre-arrest bail, therefore applicants are also entitled for the same concession.

 

6.              I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their able assistance.

 

7.              From perusal of record it appears that the incident as alleged in the FIR has taken place on 14.05.2021, however the FIR of the same incident was registered on 18.05.2021. Record further reflects that an FIR No.89/2021 was lodged by Altaf the applicant No.1 and after investigation case has been challaned and complainant party have moved pre-arrest bail in that FIR bearing application No.1347/2021 which was granted vide order dated 06.09.2021 by learned Additional Sessions Judge Gambat. Since the benefit of bail has already been extended to the complainant party by way of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.89/2021 in which same sections have been applied and the trial court has opined that the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore the applicants are also entitled for same benefit. Resultantly their bail application is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants vide order dated 29.11.2021, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

8.              Observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial.

 

 

                                                                             JUDGE

 

Suleman Khan/PA