IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-826 of 2021

 

           

Applicants:                                 Farman Ali and others, through

                                                  Mr. Manzoor Hussain Narejo,

                                                  Advocate

                                                  Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Gambhir,

                                                  Advocate holds brief on his behalf

                                                 

 

Cr. Bail Application No.S-829 of 2021

 

 

Applicants:                                 Bashir Ahmed Narejo, through

                                                  Mr. Aijaz Ahmed Naich, Advocate

 

 

Complainant:                             Amanat Ali Narejo, through

                                                  Mr. Abdul Rauf Hullio, Advocate

 

 

State:                                         Through Shafi Muhammad Mahar,

                                                  Deputy Prosecutor General

 

Date of hearing:                         07.02.2022

 

Dated of order:                           07.02.2022

                                                 

O R D E R

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:     Through captioned two applications, applicants/ accused Farman Ali, Insaf Ali, Imam Dino @ Machando and Arbab Dino @ Ghazi Dino (in Cr.B.A.No.S-826/2021) and Bashir Ahmed (in Cr.B.A.No.S-829/2021) are seeking their pre-arrest bail in FIR No.49/2021, registered at Police Station Khuhra, District Khairpur, under sections 506/2, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 147, 148, 149 and 504 PPC.  Earlier their pre-arrest bail applications were declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat, vide order dated 20.12.2021.

2.              Learned counsel for the applicants contended that punishment for offence u/s 506/2 PPC is up to seven years, however, form the contents of FIR it appears that ingredients of the same are missing; that all other sections are bailable and complainant with malafide intention has registered this FIR.  

3.              Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific role and they repeated the offence, therefore they do not deserve extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

4.              Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has conceded for confirmation of bail on the ground that there is delay of 14 days in registration of FIR which has not been properly explained by the complainant and the offence for which the applicants are involved is punishable up to seven years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.

 

5.              I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant as well as DPG and perused the material available on record with their able assistance.

6.              Since all other sections  except 506/2 PPC are bailable and punishment of section 506/2 PPC is up to seven years, as such does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and grant of bail in these cases is a rule and refusal is an exception, however, strong reasons for refusal are required. Reliance is placed on the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and Sheikh Abdul Raheem v. The State and another (2021 SCMR 822). 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 formulated 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 has 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. Further the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Tanveer V. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 733)  has held that “Once this court has held in categorical terms that grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of section 497 Cr.P.C shall be a rule and refusal shall be an exception then the courts of the country  shall  follow this principle in its’ letter and spirit because principles of law  enunciated by this court are constitutionally binding on all courts throughout  the country including the Special Tribunals and Special Courts.”  Further the said principle has been affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Shakoor v. the State and another vide order dated 25.01.2022 ( Cr.P.No.1384 of 2021).

7.              The deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage and the same is to be decided tentatively. From the tentative assessment of material available on record and by following the above principle of Honourable Supreme Court, the applicants have made out their case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, both the bail applications are allowed and interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants vide order dated 24.12.2021, 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. Office is directed to place a signed copy of this order in the captioned connected matter.

 

                                                                                  JUDGE

 

 

Suleman Khan/PA