Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 301 of 2023.


Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge




1. For orders on office objections.

2. For hearing of bail application.


Mr. Safdar Ali G. Bhutto, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.

Complainant present in person with his injured son.



Amjad Ali Sahito, J- Through instant bail application, applicant Shoukat son of Ghulam Nabi Gorar seeks pre-arrest bail in case registered vide Crime No.26/2023 at P.S Thariri Mohabbat (District Dadu), for offence punishable under Sections 394 and 412 P.P.C. The applicant approached the trial Court with the same prayer, which has been declined by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, vide Order dated 03.06.2023.


2. The applicant is called absent. Learned counsel for applicant submits that, as informed by applicant, he could not reach due to rains, as such he prays for condoning absence of applicant, as such absence of applicant is condoned.


3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned D.P.G appearing for the State and gone through the material available on record.


4. The facts of the prosecution case as depicted from para 2 of the impugned are as under:


On 16.4.2023 complainant Muhammad Ali along with his sons Ashique Ali and Mashooque Ali and nephew Juman were returning from Bothro to their village on two motorcycles. When they reached at link road Thariri Mohabbat-Mankani, at about 09.30 p.m. three persons with muffled faces and armed with one repeater gun and lathi came on the road and intercepted the complainant party and robbed them of three mobile phones and cash of Rs.40,000/-. The complainant party put up resistance due to which the clothes on the faces of culprits were removed and as such the complainant party identified two culprits as the accused Ilyas and Shoukat. The accused Shoukat made fire with his repeater gun, which hit on right leg of the complainant, foot of his son PW Ashique Ali and leg of PW Mashooque Ali. It is also stated that co-accused Ilyas has also received firearm injuries on his legs. After wards, the accused went away. The complainant party came at P.S and obtained letter for medical treatment and after medical treatment the complainant appeared at P.S and lodged F.I.R on 01.05.2023.


5. Learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that F.I.R is delayed for about 14- days; that prior to registration of the F.I.R, the complainant recorded N.C report with police station but none is nominated in such report; that there is inconsistency in ocular and medical evidence in respect of injuries to two witnesses and injuries to co-accused. Per learned counsel the case of applicant calls for further enquiry. He prayed for confirmation of interim pre arrest bail already granted to applicant/ accused.


6. Conversely, learned D.P.G. opposed the bail application on the grounds that, no malafides are on the part of complainant and or prosecution; that the applicant has been nominated in F.I.R with specific role; the version of complainant is fully supported by injured witnesses in their statements recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C, so also by medical certificates, and that the offence is heinous one, and falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.


7. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Perusal of record shows that name of applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R with specific role of committing robbery of mobile phones and cash amount from complainant party and on offering resitence by complainant party the applicant is alleged to have made fire with his repeater gun, which hit on right leg of the complainant, foot of his son PW Ashique Ali and leg of PW Mashooque Ali. The delay in reporting the matter to police has been explained by the complainant. However, the delay if any, in lodging of F.I.R is concerned, the bail cannot be granted solely on this ground. There appears no motive for complainant to falsely implicate the applicant. More-so; this is an application for pre-arrest bail which, inter-alia would be considered if there is some malafide and ulterior motive on the part of the complainant/ prosecution to falsely implicate the applicant/ accused. No such material is available on record to infer that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The offence, with which the applicant stood charged, falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. However, contentions as raised by learned counsel for applicant require deeper appreciation, which is unwarranted at bail stage.


8. A tentative assessment of all the above factors and the material available on record connect the applicant with commission of offence alleged against him disentitling him for concession of extra ordinary concession of pre arrest bail. Accordingly, instant bail application stands dismissed and interim pre arrest bail already granted to applicant is hereby recalled.


9. The observations hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party in the trial.