IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No. S- 128 of 2022.

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Applicants: 1. Shahzado son of Sanwal Khan,

2. Arbab Ali son of Sher Muhammad

Both bycaste Dasti,

Through Mr. Muhammad Tarique Panhwar, Advocate.

Complainant : Muhammad Ameen S/O Hassan Khan Dasti, through Mr. Ghulamullah Memon Advocate.

The State: Through Mr. Zulifqar Ali Jatoi,

Additional Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing. 14.04.2022.

Date of decision. 14.04.2022.

O R D E R.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

AMJAD Ali SAHITO, J.- Through the instant Crl. Bail Application, applicant/accused named above seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 07/2022, offence u/s 395, 397, 114, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(vi), 34 PPC registered at Police Station Khambhra District Ghotki. Prior to this applicants/accused filed pre arrest bail application, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC) Ubauro vide order dated 09.02.2022, hence he filed the instant Bail Application.

2. The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application and F.I.R., same could be gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused contends that applicants/accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant. He further contended that there is inordinate delay of 24 days in lodging of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished; that co-accused Nawab Ali alias Nawab has been granted confirmed pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court; that the injuries attributed against the applicants/accused does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, that the applicants/accused are regularly attending the trial Court and they are no more required for investigation. He lastly prayed that applicants/accused are entitled for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail. He has relied upon the cases of Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others vs. The State (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 730), Dildar Ahmed vs. The State (2022 SCMR 264) and Yara vs. State (1997 P.Cr.L.J 658),

4. On the other hand, Mr. Ghulamullah Memon Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, which is taken on record. Per learned counsel the names of applicants/accused transpire in the FIR and they have participated in the occurrence with specific role and opposed for confirmation of pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned Additional Prosecutor General submits that on the very day of the incident, injured Shahpar at Police Station and lodged N.C report and requested for issuance of letter for medical treatment as such there is no delay for lodging of FIR. He lastly prayed for dismissal of bail application.

6. I have heard respective learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

7. Admittedly names of applicants/accused transpire in the FIR with specific role that they along with co-accused in furtherance of their common object entered in the house of complainant Muhammad Ameen whereas accused Shahzado caused butt blow of Kalashnikov upon Shahpar brother of complainant with intention to commit his murder which hit on his head, left ear but as per medical certificate the injury attributed against him resulted under section 337-A(ii) PPC which is punishable upto five years while the role assigned against applicant/accused Arbab alias Munawar that he was along with co-accused co-accused entered into the room, broken the lock of iron box and robbed cash of Rs. 5,80,000/-. There appear reasonable grounds that the applicants/accused are involved in the commission of offence. At bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made and nothing has been brought on record to show any ill-will or malafide on the part of the complainant, which is requirement for grant of pre-arrest bail. All the P.Ws have supported the version of complainant. The ocular evidence finds support from medical evidence. So far delay of registration of FIR is concerned that on the same day injured Shahpur appeared at Police Station and lodged N.C and subsequently after obtaining medical certificate, he approached to Police Station but SHO refused to register the FIR, as such he has filed application under section 22-A B Cr.P.C and after obtaining order from the learned Justice of Peace, lodged above FIR against accused persons as such delay has been plausibly explained as such sufficient material is available on the record against the applicants/accused to connect them with the alleged offence. In this regard, I am fortified with the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan [2019 S C M R 1129] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:-

''Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is diversion of usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore a petitioner seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide; it is not a substitute for post arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of investigation----the principles of judicial protection are being faithfully adhered to till date, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail essentially requires considerations of malafide, ulterior motive or abuse of process of law."

8. In view of above, learned counsel for the applicants/accused have failed to make out a good case for grant of pre-arrest bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC. In such circumstances, the instant Crl. bail Application stands dismissed and interim order dated 21.03.2022 earlier granted to the applicants/accused Shahzado and Arbab Ali is hereby recalled. It is made clear that bail application filed on behalf of applicant/accused No.3 Nawab Ali was already dismissed as not pressed at the time of hearing vide order dated 21.03.2022.

9. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicants on merits.

Judge

Irfan/P.A