IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-48 of 2023

Applicant:	Jinsar Ali Janwri
	M/s Noorullah Gulsher Khan Rind and Mushtaq Ali Langah, advocates
The State	Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State
Date of hearing:	23-02-2023
Date of order:	23-02-2023

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through instant criminal bail application, applicant/accused Jinsar Ali Janwri seeks confirmation of interim pre-arrest-bail in Crime No.62/2022, registered at Police Station Drigh for the offence U/S 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 114, 506/2, 452, 148,149 P.P.C, after rejection of his bail plea by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Kambar, vide order dated 27.01.2023.

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

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives and due to previous dispute/ill-will over the matter of children; that there is delay of two months and 6 days in lodgment of F.I.R, which has not been explained properly by the complainant; that as per the F.I.R, the allegation against the applicant is that he inflicted lathi blow to the wife of complainant, which hit on the little finger of her hand, which has been declared as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Hashimah and falls U/S 337-F(v) P.P.C, which is punishable with Daman and imprisonment of either description for five years. He further submits that the offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C; that the case requires for further inquiry. He, therefore, requests for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused.

4. Learned D.P.G. in view of above submissions and looking to the delay of 2 months and 6 days in registration of F.I.R, has raised no objection for confirmation of bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the material available on the record.

6. Admittedly there is delay of 02 months and 6 days in registration of F.I.R, as the incident has taken place on 19.10.2022 and the F.I.R has been lodged on 25.12.2022, same delay has not been explained properly by the complainant. On same set of material, the trial court has granted the bail to the co-accused Sono @ Dildar, Manthar, Bashir and Shahzad, however, only bail application of applicant/accused was rejected only on the ground that injury so attributed against him is punishable upto five years.

7. The offence for which the applicant has been involved does not fall within the ambit of 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 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 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 applicant and has raised no objection for confirmation. 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.

8. In view of the above and the no objection of learned D.P.G. interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 02.02.2023 is confirmed on same terms and conditions. Accordingly, instant criminal bail application is allowed.

9. 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

Abdul Salam/P.A