IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Bail Application No.S-462 of 2023
|
DATE
OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE |
For hearing of
bail application.
Date
of hearing 16.10.2023.
Mr. Naseem Ahmed
Bambhan, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Muhammad
Hanif Lashari, Advocate for complainant.
Syed
Sardar Ali Shah, D.P.G for State.
***************
O R D E R
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J; Through aforesaid bail application,
applicants, namely, Attur and Atta Hussain seek their Pre-arrest bail in
Crime No.75/2023 registered at Police Station, Faiz
Gunj for offence punishable under Sections 365, 337A(i), F(i), 511, 147, 148,
149, 504 PPC after their bail was declined by Additional Sessions Judge, Mirwah vide order dated 17.06.2023.
2. Facts of the case are
mentioned in the FIR and copy whereof is attached with bail application
therefore, there is no need to re-produce the same.
3. Learned Counsel for applicants contends that the applicants have falsely been involved in this
case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives due to
Matrimonial enmity; that no role is attributed against the applicants nor they
have any nexus with the alleged abduction of abductee Abdul Jabbar; that no
case of alleged abduction has been made out however, enmity existed between
parties over matrimonial affairs; that case does not come within the ambit of
Section 497 Cr.P.C. He prayed for confirmation of bail. He
relied upon case of Nadir Ali v. The State
(2014 YLR 1454).
4. Syed Sardar Ali Shah, learned Additional Prosecutor
General assisted by Mr. Muhammad Hanif, Counsel for complainant has vehemently
opposed for confirmation of bail on the ground that there is
no malafide on the part of complainant and the applicants are nominated in the
FIR with specific role of alleged abduction of one Abdul Jabbar; that the
applicants were available at the place of occurrence duly armed with weapons; that
PWs have supported the version of complainant; that offence falls within the
prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. They opposed for confirmation of bail
to the applicants.
5. Heard arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused
the material
available on record with their able assistance.
6. From the perusal of record, it appears that allegation against
the applicants in the F.I.R, is that applicants have caught hold Abdul Jabbar Lashari from his arm and tried to
abduct him hence the ingredients of Section
365 P.P.C does not attract in the case in
hand as the said Abdul Jabbar was not abducted by the accused persons. The
applicability of Section 365 PPC is yet to be determined by the trial Court
after recording evidence. The
injuries sustained by the complainant/injured have been declared by the Medico-Legal Officer as “Other injury” and “Shuja-e-Khafifah” which are liable to daman which do not fall within
prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The applicants are regularly attending this Court
as well as learned trial Court and there is no allegation of misusing the
concession of bail against them therefore, no useful purpose would be met in diverting back the
applicants to the learned trial Court for seeking their post arrest bail.
In view
of above position the case appears to be one of further inquiry in respect of
the applicants and comes within the meaning of sub-section(2) of Section 497
Cr.P.C entitling the applicants to grant concession of bail. Result thereof this application is
allowed. The interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the
applicants named above vide order dated 04.07.2023 is hereby confirmed on same terms and
conditions.
Bail application
stands disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Ihsan/*