IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application No.S-105 of 2022
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.
For Orders on of office objection.
2. For
hearing of bail application.
O R D E R.
24-03-2022.
Mr.
Shabbir Ali Bozdar, advocate for applicant.
Mr.
Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State.
AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through instant Application applicant/accused Nadeem
Ahmed Rajput seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 04/2022, offence u/s 452, 324, 337-H(ii),
34 PPC registered at Police Station Mohbat Dero, District Naushahro Feroze.
Prior to this, pre arrest bail application filed by the applicant was turned
down by learned Additional Sessions Judge Kandiaro vide order dated 28-02-2022,
hence instant bail application.
2. The
details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail
application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with
such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant/accused contended that applicant/accused is innocent and
has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide
intentions and ulterior motives due to dispute over the matrimonial affairs,
which is admitted by the complainant in the FIR; that there is inordinate delay
of about 2 days in lodging the FIR and such delay has not been explained;
that injuries sustained by the injured
is self suffered injury as there is blackening and charring over the injury
sustained by the injured Muhammad Tahir; that case requires for further
investigation, therefore, he pray for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.
4. On the
other hand, learned DPG for the State vehemently opposed for the confirmation of
bail to the applicant/accused on the ground that he is nominated in the FIR
with specific role of causing injury to injured Muhammad Tahir with intention
to commit his murder.
5. I have
heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material
available on record.
6. Perusal
of FIR reveals that delay in lodging the FIR has properly been explained by the
complainant as after the incident injured was brought at police station, where
from the letter was obtained and injured was shifted to Taluka Hospital Kadiaro,
then he was referred to PMC Nawabshah for better treatment, hence the delay is
properly explained by the complainant. The allegation against the
applicant/accused is that he along with co-accused Mobeen Rajput and Tasleem
Rajpur, who are his real brothers entered in the house of complainant and made
straight fire upon Muhammad Tahir, with intention to commit his murder, which
hit him at his left leg and fell down. During the course of investigation,
the investigating officer has recorded the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs, who
have fully supported the version of the complainant. The ocular evidence finds support
with the medical evidence. Sufficient material is available on record to
connect the applicant/accused with the commission of offence. At bail stage
only tentative assessment is to be considered and deeper appreciation of
evidence is not warranted by law. Nothing has been brought on the record to
shown any ill-will or malafide on the part of the complainant or IO of the case,
which is basic requirement for grant of pre-arrest bail. In this regard, I am
fortified with the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan [2019 SCMR
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."
7.
In view of above discussion, learned
counsel for the applicant/accused has failed to make out a good case for grant of
pre arrest bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC, therefore,
the applicant/accused is not entitled for any concession, hence his pre arrest
bail application is rejected
and interim bail already granted to them vide order dated 07-03-2022 is hereby
recalled.
9.
Needless, to mention that the
observations made herein above are tentative in nature
and would not prejudice the case of either party at trial. Office is direction
to place a signed copy of this Order in captioned connected matter.
J U D G E
Nasim/P.A