THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

1st Criminal Bail Application No.S-594 of 2022

 

Applicant:††††††††††† Noor Jan alias Noor Jahan through Mr. Riaz Hussain Khoso, Advocate.

 

Complainant:††††† Sudheer Khan, through Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate.

 

Respondent:††††††† The State

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

 

Date of hearing:† 19.01.2023

Date of Order:†††† 19.01.2023

O R D E R

ZULFIQUAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Noor Jan alias Noor Jahan son of Muhammad Khan Jafferi, seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 18/2022, offence under Sections 324, 337-F(iii), 337-H(2), 148 & 149 PPC of the Police Station Usman Essani at Baddo, district Shikarpur. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was dismissed by the Court of III-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur vide order dated 26.08.2022; hence he filed instant Criminal Bail Application.

2.††††† ††††††††† The facts of the incident are mentioned in the bail application and the copy of F.I.R. is also attached with the bail application, hence, need not to reproduce the same here.

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 the F.I.R. is delayed for about twenty five days and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant, therefore, false implication of the applicant/accused cannot be ruled out.† He further added that the injury attributed to the applicant/accused is certified to be 337-F(iii) P.P.C, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. This case has been challaned and the accused is attending the Court regularly and he is no more required for further investigation.† Lastly, learned counsel prayed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.

4.††††††††††††††† On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the applicant / accused is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role.† However, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has frankly acceded to the grant of bail to the applicant/accused by submitting that the injury attributed to the applicant/accused is certified to be 337-F(iii) P.P.C, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

5. †††† ††††††††† Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. From the perusal of F.I.R. it reflects that the incident took place on 30.06.2022, however, the F.I.R. was registered on 25.07.2022 with the delay of about twenty five days, which has not been plausibly explained by the complainant. The applicability of section 324 P.P.C is to be decided after recording the evidence of the complainant party as allegedly injured Babar Ali received injury on his right leg and if there was intention of the accused to kill Babar Ali, he might have caused injury on his vital parts, but he did not do it.† Moreover, as per medical certificate injured Babar Ali has received firearm injury on the just below of his right knee joint, which is certified to be 337-F(iii) P.P.C, which is punishable upto three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The offences for which the applicant is allegedly involved do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C 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 petitionerís 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 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 07.12.2022 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