IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Present;

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 406 of 2021

Applicants : Muhammad Sadique, Angan, both sons of Muhammad Yakoob,

Jeyo S/o Kareem Dino, Khameeso S/o Allah Dino, Lal Dino S/o Jeeand and Jeand S/o Mevo Khan all by caste Phulpoto Through Mr. Shafique Ahmed Khan Leghari Advocate

Complainant : Mst. Farzana

Through Syed Muhammad Ali Shah Advocate

Respondent : The State

Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

Dated of hearing: 23.08.2021

Date of order : 23.08.2021

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J – Through this bail application, the applicants/accused seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No.88 of 2021 registered at Police Station Rohri, District Sukkur for offences punishable under Section 452, 147, 148, 114, 337-A(i), 337-F(ii), 504, 506/2, 427 PPC. The bail plea of the applicants/accused has been declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Sukkur vide order dated 25.06.2021.

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. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused contended that the applicants/accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant due to enmity over the property as the applicants/accused had purchased a plot from the husband of the complainant and possession was handed over to the applicants and they started construction of house and from time to time demanded registration of the sale deed always the complainant party kept them on false hopes and ultimately the complainant party illegally occupied the said house of the applicants/accused and on the contrary the complainant has lodged a false FIR; that there is inordinate and unexplained delay of three (03) days in lodgment for the FIR; that all the Sections are bailable exception Section 506/2 PPC; that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of sub-Section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C; that the interim challan of the case has been submitted by the police and the applicants/accused are no more required for further enquiry. He lastly prayed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned DPG for the State prayed for dismissal of instant bail application by contending that the names of the applicants/accused are specifically mentioned in the FIR with the role that they actively participated in the commission of the offence by causing multiple injuries to injured / complainant Mst. Farzana and Mukhtiar Ali, therefore, the applicants/accused are vicariously liable for the offence, as such they do not deserve for the concession of bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants/accused, learned counsel for the complainant and DPG for the State and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it appears that all the Sections applied in the instant case are bailable except Section 506/2 PPC, and it is yet be determined by the trial Court after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses whether the applicants/accused have issued threats to the complainant and witnesses of dire-consequences or not? Further the injured Mukhtiar Ali has sustained five injuries, caused by minor sharp cutting object, whereas, in the FIR the complainant Mst. Farzana has stated that the applicants/accused were having lathies and weapons at the time of incident. The injuries sustained by injured Mukhtiar Ali have been declared by the Senior Medical Officer, Taluka Hospital Rohri as punishable under Section 337-F(ii) PPC, which carries maximum punishment upto 03 years. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants/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 applicants/accused by this Court vide dated 30.06.2021 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