IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.
Cr. B.A S-514 of 2021. : Muhammad Bux Mugheri vs.
The State
For the Applicant : Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani
Advocate a/w the applicant
For the complainant. Mr. Imtiaz Ali Mugheri
Advocate.
For the State Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Kalhoro D.P.G.
Date of hearing : 27.01.2022
Date of announcement : 27.01.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. (1) Overruled. (2) The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail, in respect of F.I.R. 71 of 2021 registered on 05.09.2021 before P.S. Taluka, pertaining to offences under Section 354-a, 337-A(i), F(i), 114, 504 PPC. Vide interim order dated 03.11.2021, the applicant was admitted to interim bail and he seeks confirmation thereof.
2. Learned counsel submits that the applicant surrendered before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Larkana however, vide order dated 23.09.2021, in Cr. Bail Application No.1294 of 2021, the applicant’s application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed, hence, the present proceedings.
3. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel and sifting[1] through the material placed before the court, reproduction whereof is eschewed herein[2], it is observed as follows:
a. The allegation levelled against the applicant was primarily that of instigation.
b. Learned counsel for the applicant pleaded entitlement to the concession of pre-arrest bail on the premise that the applicant had been falsely implicated in an attempt to influence some property dispute; FIR was lodged with delay of five days; and no direct role has been ascribed thereto as the complaint there against was just instigation.
c. The learned APG articulated no cavil to the narration as aforesaid, while the complainant, present in person, opposed the confirmation of bail.
d. It has been reasoned that the basic foundation of prosecution remains to be laid, hence, demonstrably qualifying the present case within the remit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Therefore, denial of anticipatory bail in the present circumstances, in an arguably fit case for consideration of post arrest bail[3], on a technicality would be unconscionable and unmerited[4].
e. Learned counsel has articulated a prima facie case for consideration of judicial refuge[5], envisaged to protect the innocent / vulnerable from the rigors of abuse of process of law and harassment[6]; so as to protect human dignity and honor[7] from the humiliation of incarceration, arguably intended for designs extraneous and mala fide.
4. In view of the foregoing, the interim bail granted to the applicant, vide order dated 03.11.2021, is hereby confirmed upon the same terms as earlier prescribed and this bail application is disposed of.
5. It is considered pertinent to record that the observations herein are of tentative nature and shall not influence and / or prejudice the case of either party at trial.
JUDGE
[1] Shoaib Mahmood Butt vs. Iftikhar Ul Haq & Others reported as 1996 SCMR 1845.
[2] Chairman NAB vs. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif & Others reported as PLD 2019 Supreme Court 445; Muhammad Shakeel vs. The State & Others reported as PLD 2014 Supreme Court 458.
[3] Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafar Ullah & Another reported as 1986 SCMR 1380.
[4] Khalil Ahmed Soomro & Others vs. The State reported as PLD 2017 Supreme Court 730; Hassan Jameel Ansari & Another vs. National Accountability Bureau & Another reported as 2012 YLR 2809 (Division Bench Judgment of this Court).
[5] Per Qazi Muhammad Amin J. in Ghulam Farooq Channa vs. The Special Judge ACE (Central I) Karachi & Another (Criminal Petition 169 of 2020) approving Hidayat Ullah Khan vs. The Crown reported as PLD 1949 Lahore 21 (Per Cornelius J.).
[6] Ajmal Khan vs. Liaqat Hayat & Another reported as PLD 1998 Supreme Court 97.
[7] Murad Khan vs. Fazle Subhan & Another reported as PLD 1983 Supreme Court 82.