IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail Application No.S-764 of 2021
Applicants: Sanaullah and
another, through
Mr.
Ali Dad Narejo, Advocate
Complainant: Abdul Rehman,
through
Mr.
Saeed Jamal Lund, Advocate
State: Through
Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi,
Additional
Prosecutor General
Date of
hearing: 14.01.2022
Dated of
order: 14.01.2022
O R D E R
Zulfiqar
Ali Sangi, J: Applicants/accused Sanaullah son of Idrees
Narejo and Aqib son of Naseem Narejo are seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.07/2021,
registered at Police Station Guloo Siyal, District Khairpur, under section 337-A(i), 337-F(i) 337-F(ii), 506/2, 147, 148 and 149 PPC. Their
earlier pre-arrest bail plea was declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge
Gambat vide order dated 24.11.2021, hence they
approached this court by filing present bail application.
2. As
per FIR the applicants have caused injuries to the complainant due to previous
grudge over matrimonial affairs.
3. Learned
counsel for the applicants has contended that there is delay of 18 days in
registration of the FIR which has not been properly explained by the
complainant. He next contended that there is previous enmity between the
parties which is admitted in the FIR. He also contended that hall the sections
are bailable except 337-A(ii) which provides punishment
up to three years and as such does not fall within prohibitory clause of
section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, the applicants are entitled for concession of
bail.
4. Conversely,
learned counsel for the complainant and APG have opposed the grant of bail on
the ground that the applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific role of
causing injuries and they are not entitled for bail in case the offence does
not fall within the prohibitory clause, as a matter of right as this is a case
of exceptional, therefore the bail application may be dismissed.
5. I
have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APG for the state and
have gone through the material available on record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly
there is delay of 18 hours in registration of the FIR which has not been
properly explained. The injuries as certified by the MO are punishable up to
three years and all other sections applied in the FIR are bailable, hence the
offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The
Honourable Supreme Court in numerous judgments has held that the bail in cases
which do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 is right and its
refusal is an exception. Reliance is placed on the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD
1995 SC 34) , Muhammad Tanveer V. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 733), Sheikh Abdul Raheem v. The State and another (2021 SCMR 822) and Muhammad Daniyal Farrukh
Ansari v. The State (2021 SCMR 557). The Honourable Supreme Court vide order dated: 05-08-2021 in the Case of Muhammad Imran v. The State
(Crl.P.860-L/2021) has categorically settled the grounds for the case
to fall within the exceptions meriting denial of bail as (a) the likelihood of
the petitioner’s abscondence to escape trial; (b) his tampering with the
prosecution evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses to obstruct the
course of justice; or (c) his repeating the offence keeping in view his
previous criminal record or the desperate manner in which he has prima facie
acted in the commission of offence alleged. Learned counsel
for the complainant and APG have not been able to point out any of the
grounds to bring the case of applicants in the exceptions for refusal of the
bail as settled by the Supreme Court.
7. It is settled principle of law that while deciding the bail plea
of accused deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible and the material
is to be assessed tentatively. From the tentative assessment of
the material available on record, the applicants have made out the case for
confirmation of pre-arrest bail,
therefore, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants /
accused by this court 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