THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

1^st Criminal Bail Application No.S-597 of 2022

Applicant:            Humair through Mr. Aamir Ali Sohoo, Advocate.

Complainant:      Mr. Abid Hussain, advocate holds brief for Mr. Abdul Rahman Chandio, advocate for the complainant.

                            The State

Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of hearing:  13.01.2023

Date of Order:     13.01.2023

O R D E R

ZULFIQUAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Humair son of Riyaz Ali Bhutto, seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 76/2022, offence under Sections 337-A(ii), 506/2, 147, 148, 504 P.P.C. of the Police Station Civil Lines, Larkana. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 29.08.2022; hence he filed instant Criminal 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 not gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3.                Per learned counsel, the applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that there is ten days delay in lodgment of F.I.R. without any plausible explanation; that the offence with which the applicant has been charged does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He lastly prayed for confirmation of bail.

4.                On the other hand learned D.P.G has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused on the ground that the applicant/accused is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role; however, he is unable to point out any explanation in delay in lodgment of the F.I.R.

5.                Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.  Admittedly F.I.R. is delayed about ten days and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. The injury allegedly assigned to present applicant/accused on injured Muhammad Muntazir does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The offences for which the applicants are allegedly involved, entailing punishment for less than ten years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC and grant of bail in such cases is rule while refusal is an exception as has been held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases of Tarique Bashir V. State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Zafar Iqbal V. Muhammad Anwar (2009 SCMR 1488), Muhammad Tanveer V. State (PLD 2017 SC 733) and Shaikh Abdul Raheem V. The State etc. (2021 SCMR 822). Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Imran V. The State (PLD 2021 SC-903)     has formulated the grounds for the case to fall within the exception meriting denial of bail as (a). the likelihood of the petitioner’s abscondence to escape trial; (b) his tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses to obstruct the course of justice; or (c) his repeating the offence keeping in view his previous criminal record or the desperate manner in which he has prima facie acted in the commission of offence alleged. Further, Honourable Supreme Court held in the said order held that the prosecution has to show if the case of the petitioner falls within any of these exception on the basis of the material available on the record. In the case in hand, the prosecution has failed to establish any of the above ground meriting denial of the application of the applicants. It is also settled by the Honourable Apex Court that deeper appreciation of the evidence is not permissible while deciding the bail application and the same is to be decided tentatively on the basis of material available on the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out case for grant of bail under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C.  Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 12.12.2022 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

7.                Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

                                J U D G E

Manzoor