IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S-75 of 2022

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

1. For Orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of Bail Application.

O R D E R.

24-03-2022.

Mr. Mujahid Ali Jatoi, advocate for applicant.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Bango, advocate for complainant.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through the instant Crl. Bail Application, applicants/accused Ghulam Umar, Rashid @ Rashid Umar, and Iqbal Khan all bycaste Jatoi seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 14/2021, offence u/s 324, 337H(2), 148, 149 PPC registered at Police Station Landhyoon, District Khairpur. Prior to this, the applicant filed such application, but the same was turned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge Gambat vide order dated 03-02-2022, hence this 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 the applicants/accused submit that applicants/accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives due to dispute over the landed property, which is admitted by the complainant in the FIR; that there is inordinate delay of about 06 days in lodging the FIR and such delay has not been explained by the complainant; that a farmer of advocate Orangzaib Jatoi was murdered, such FIR bearing Crime No. 13/2021 was registered against the near relatives of present complainant at police station Landhayoon and in order to create pressure to compromise or withdraw from the said murder case, the complainant has lodged the instant FIR; that the applicants/accused have joined the investigation and have not misused the concession of interim pre-arrest bail, therefore, he pray for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.

4. On the other hand learned DPG for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused on the ground that applicants/accused are nominated in the FIR with specific role.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants/accused, learned DPG for the State as well as complainant and have gone through the material available on record.

6. Admittedly, there is inordinate delay of about 06 days in lodging the FIR and such delay has not been properly explained by the complainant. The allegations against the applicants/accused Ghulam Umar, Iqbal and Rashid are that they on the instigation of co-accused Orangzaib made direct fires upon the complainant party with intention to commit their murder, but fire hit to Mst. Gulshad daughter of the complainant and she fell down. Record reflects that there are general allegations against all the accused persons and no specific role of causing injury to injured Mst. Gushad is attributed to any of them. Moreover, the injured Mst. Gulshad has sustained only one injury and complainant has not disclosed in the FIR that fire of which accused hit to injured Mst. Gulshad. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused has also pleaded malafide on the part of complainant to falsely involve them in this case over the dispute of landed property, which complainant himself has admitted in the FIR. The case has been challaned and applicants/accused is no more required for further investigation.

7. In view of above discussion, learned counsel for the applicants/accused has made out a good case for confirmation of bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC, hence the instant bail application is allowed and interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused is confirmed on same terms and condition.

8. 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 applicant on merits.

J U D G E

Nasim/P.A