IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S- 813 of 2021.

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Applicant: 1. Jan Muhammad alias Janu S/O Sajjan,

2. Jani alias Jan Muhammad S/O Dilbar

Through: Mr. Shafique Ahmed Lehari, Advocate.

Complainant : Through Mr. Bakhshan Khan Mahar,

Advocate.

The State: Through Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing. 21.02.2022.

Date of decision. 21.02.2022.

O R D E R.

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

AMJAD Ali SAHITO,J.- Through the instant Crl. Bail Application, applicants/accused named above seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 66/2021, offence u/s 392, 394 PPC registered at Police Station Khanpur Mahar District Ghotki. Prior to this applicants/accused filed pre arrest bail application, which was dismissed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC) Ghotki vide order dated 16.12.2021, 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 07 days in lodging of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished. He further contended that prior to lodgment of the FIR by the present complainant, the applicants/accused have lodged FIR against present complainant vide Crime No.1063/2021 at Police Station Pano Akil as such applicants/accused are entitled for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for applicants/accused relied upon the cases of Nooruddin and another v. The State (2005 MLD 1267), Muhammad Akram vs. The State (2020 P.Cr.L.J 31) and Ghulam Muhammad alias Masood vs. The State (2020 YLR Note 56).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General have vehemently opposed for confirmation of pre-arrest bail on the ground that prior to the lodgment of present FIR, the entry with regard incident was recorded by the complainant and thereafter he rushed for medical treatment and the applicants/accused have malafidely lodged FIR against complainant in order to save their skin. The delay has been properly explained by the complainant and this is a heinous case of robbery. Lastly prayed that applicants/accused are very much involved in the commission of offence and they are not entitled for concession of bail.

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

6. From the perusal of record, it appears that names of applicants/accused transpire in the FIR with specific role that on 23.11.2021 when complainant along with his brother Abdul Razak, cousin Mubarak were returning from Khanpur Mahar, complainant was driving the motorcycle, it was 4.30 pm they reached near house of Bux Mahar they saw and identified present applicants/accused along with one unidentified person armed with lathi and pistols intercepted and stopped complainant and on the point of weapons accused Jani Mahar robbed cash of Rs. 10,000/- from pocket of complainant so also accused Jan Muhammad alias Janu Mahar caused lathi to complainant on his head and left side of forehead, complainant raised cries which attracted to villagers and accused persons run away. Thereafter complainant with the help of witnesses came at Police Station, obtained letter for treatment, went to Taluka Hospital Khanpur Mahar wherefrom he was referred for better treatment to Civil Hospital Sukkur and after getting medical treatment he lodged FIR. Learned counsel for complainant files statement along with copies of seven FIRs lodged against the applicants/accused which shows that the applicants/accuse are habitual offenders and are involved in the cases of murder, abduction and attempt to commit Qatal-i-Amd. The cases of robberies are increasing day by day in our society as such it is impossible for the residents /innocents persons to pass their daily routine life. There appear reasonable grounds that the applicants/accused are involved in the commission of robbery. The delay of lodgment of FIR has been plausibly explained by the complainant that after the incident complainant along with his witnesses went to Police Station Khanpur, obtained letter for treatment and then he approached to Taluka Hospital Khanpur Mahar wherefrom he was referred to Civil Hospital Sukkur and after medical treatment he came at Police Station and lodged FIR. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused are distinguishable with the fact and circumstances of the present case and thus the same are not helpful to the case of applicants/accused. 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 as such sufficient material is available on the record against the applicants/accused to connect them with the alleged offences. 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."

7. In view of above, learned counsel for the applicants/accused 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 17.12.20221 earlier granted to the applicants/accused is hereby recalled.

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.

Judge

Irfan/P.A