ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-543 of 2021

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

           

 

Applicant:                                  Mukhtiar Ali Lashari, through

                                                  Mr. Achar Khan Gabol, Advocate

 

Complainant:                             Shahid Ali, through  

                                                  Mr. Ayaz Ali Shaikh, Advocate

 

State:                                         Through Mr.Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, DPG

 

Date of hearing:                         24.09.2021

 

Dated of order:                           24.09.2021

                                                 

 

O R D E R

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:  Applicant/accused Mukhtiar Ali son of Meer Khan seeks his pre-arrest bail in FIR No.25/2021, registered at Police Station Tamachani, under sections 324, 506/2, 504, 114 and 452 PPC. His earlier bail plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Sukkur vide order dated 30.08.2021. Now he approached to this court for the same relief.

2.              As per FIR the allegation against the present applicant is that due to enmity over some landed property he had fired from his pistol upon Asif Ali who received injuries at his left leg.

3.              Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has falsely been involved by the complainant due to enmity over landed property. He next contended that there is delay of one day in registration of FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant. He further contended that as per medical certificate the injuries sustained by the injured Asif Ali is on non-vital part of his body and has been declared by the Medical Officer as Jurh Ghayr Jaifa Mutalima punishable up to three years, as such does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, while for section 324 Cr.P.C evidence is required. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on 2020 SCMR 717, 2008 SCMR 1621 and 2017 SCMR 116. He prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant may be confirmed.

4.              Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the confirmation of pre-arrest bail and contended that the applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role and the offence falls within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He next contended that the complainant party is also legal heirs having share in the property for which they have filed civil suit in the court having jurisdiction. He also contended that due to dispute over share of property the applicant party has lodged false FIR No.14/2021 PS Tamachani and FIR No.44/2021 PS Khambra against the complainant party. He further contended that the complainant party is under threats, therefore the applicant is not entitled for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.

5.              Learned DPG conceded for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail and submitted that in provisional medical certificate it has been mentioned by the Doctor that possibility of self-suffered cannot be ruled out, therefore the case of applicant requires further enquiry.

 

6.              I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their able assistance.

 

7.              Admittedly there is enmity between the parties for which several FIRs have been registered against each other and civil suit is also pending as has been stated by the learned counsel for the complainant. The injuries sustained by the injured Asif Ali has been declared by the Doctor as  Jurh Ghayr Jaifa Mutalima which carries punishment up to three years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception. So far section 324 PPC is concerned, its applicability will be considered by the trial court after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is settled principle of law that bail applications are to be decided tentatively and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible.

 

8.              From the tentative assessment of the material available on record,  I am of the view that the applicant has made out the case for confirmation of his  pre-arrest bail, therefore, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant / accused  by this court vide order dated 06.09.2021, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

9.              Observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial.

 

 

                                                                             JUDGE

 

Suleman Khan/PA