IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Present;

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 266 of 2021

Applicants : Mumtaz Ali S/o Hadi Bux alias Haddan Fakir and Ghulam

Abbas S/o Hadi Bux alias Haddan, Rid

Through Haji Shamsuddin Rajper 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 applicant/accused seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.25 of 2021 registered at Police Station Sorah, District Khairpur for an offences punishable under Sections 452, 337-L(i)(ii), 337-A(i), 337‑H(2), 148, 149 and 506/2 PPC. The bail plea of the applicant/accused has been declined by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur vide order dated 15.04.2021.

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. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants/accused that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant due to enmity over the landed property, as such there is serious malafide on the part of the complainant to implicate the applicants/accused in the false case; that there is delay of one month and twenty seven days in lodgment for the FIR, for which no such plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that the alleged offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C; that challan of the case has been submitted by the police and the applicants/accused are no more required for further enquiry; that in the circumstances, the applicants/accused have made-out a case for further inquiry as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

4. 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 and they have actively participated in the commission of the offence, therefore, they 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 DPG for the State and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it appears that there is dispute between the parties over the landed property and there is delay of one month and twenty seven days in lodgment of the FIR for which no such plausible explanation has been furnished. The offence with which the applicants/accused have been charged does not come within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed in the case of Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani vs. The State (2020 SCMR 717). Learned counsel for the applicants/accused also pleaded malafide on the part of complainant that due to enmity over the landed property civil litigation has been converted in criminal. The challan of the case has been filed and they are no more required for the purpose of investigation. In such circumstances, the applicants/accused have made-out a case for grant of 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 vide dated 29.04.2021 is confirmed on same terms and conditions. They are directed to join the trial. It is made clear that if the applicants/accused failed to appear before the trial Court, the trial Court would at liberty to take action against them in accordance with law.

6. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the trial.

Judge

ARBROHI