ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
Cr. Bail Appln. No.S-492 of 2009
Date Order with signature of Judge
Present:
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed
1. For Orders on MA 1966/09.
2. For hearing.
04.08.2009.
Syed Ghulam Haider Shah, Advocate for the Applicants along with Applicants.
=
1. Granted.
2. The learned Counsel contends that only general allegations have been made in the FIR of causing of injuries by the Applicants by hatchets and that no medical certificate is available to substantiate the fact as to on which part of the body the injuries have been caused and that the Applicants are entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel and find that the learned Sessions Judge Sanghar has considered the case of the Applicants for grant of pre-arrest bail and has discussed the matter as follows:-
“Specific role of causing back side and straight side of hatchet blows is attributed to all three Applicants/accused and the complainant has specifically stated in F.I.R that accused Akram caused hatchet blow to Makhan, accused Khadim caused hatchet blow to Din Muhammad and Khamiso caused hatchet blow to Samad and such injuries were bleeding, which are vital parts of body. It is also alleged that the accused have caused hatchet blows with intention to commit murder. Three persons have sustained injuries at the hands of present applicants/accused nominated in the F.I.R, which was promptly lodge, therefore, I found no malafide on the part of complainant to have falsely implicated the Applicants/accused. For grant of pre-arrest bail the Applicant/accused must establish on the part of prosecution to have falsely implicate the present Applicants/accused in order to harass, humiliate and disgrace. From contents of FIR, it appears that the Applicants/accused Akram Mari and Khadim Mari demanded fertilizer on credit from Samad, who is son of complainant, for which injured Samad refused, on which the applicants/accused had become annoyed and on the day of incident, the above named Applicants/accused came with preparation duly armed with hatchets have caused sharp side and back side of hatchet bellows over heads of Makhan, Din Muhammad and Samad, and they all also caused injuries on the other parts of bodies of above named injured persons. There is sufficient prima facie evidence available on the record against the present applicants/accused. Nothing has been brought on record to make out case for grant of pre-arrest bail in favour of the Applicants/accused, who have been nominated with specific role of causing injuries to the complainant party. Case is under investigation and the crime weapons viz: hatchets are yet to be recovered and grant of pre-arrest bail would amount destroy the investigation in above case of injuries. In such circumstances, I found no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail, therefore, the pre-arrest bail of Applicants/accused namely Akram, Khadim and Khamiso alias Pachu being without merits is dismissed.”
In the case of MUHAMMAD ARSHAD V. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427) the Honourable Supreme Court has summarized the grounds on which the benefit of pre-arrest bail can be extended and they are mentioned at Page-431 of the judgment, which are as follows:-
(a) grant of bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief to be granted only in extraordinary situations to protect innocent persons against victimization through abuse of law for ulterior motives;
(b) pre-arrest bial is not to be used as a substitute or as an alternative for post-arrest bail;
(c) bail before arrest can not be granted unless the person seeking it satisfies the conditions specified through subsection (2) of section 497 of Code of Criminal Procedure i.e unless he establishes the existence of reasonable grounds leading to a belief that he was not guilty of the offence alleged against him and that there were, in fact, sufficient grounds warranting further inquiry into his guilt;
(d) not just this but in addition thereto, he must also show that his arrest was being sought for ulterior motive, particularly on the part of the police; to cause irreparable humiliation to him and to disagree and dishonour him;
(e) such a Petitioner should further establish that he had not done or suffered any act which would disentitle him to a discretionary relief in equity e.g. he had no past criminal record or that he had not been a fugitive at law; and finally that;
(f) in the absence of a reasonable and a justifiable cause, a person desiring his admission to bail before arrest, must, in the first instance approach the Court of first instant i.e the Court of Sessions, before petitioning the High Court for the purpose.
As stated above, the ground urged for grant of pre-arrest bail is only that medical certificate has not been obtained, which does not come within the purview of the above summarized grounds and even otherwise the learned Sessions Judge Sanghar in the impugned order dated 29.7.2009 has given sufficient reasons for non grant of the pre-arrest bail to the applicants. I, therefore, find no merits in this pre-arrest bail application, which is dismissed.
JUDGE
Ali Haider/P.A