IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT
LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 676 of 2023.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
01.02.2024.
1. For orders on office objections.
2. For hearing of bail application.
Mr. Nadeem Ahmed S. Qureshi, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Mir Muhammad Bhagat, Advocate for complainant.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.
~~~~~~~
ORDER
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J: Through this application, applicants Abdul Jabbar, Aslam, Suhail, Afzal Hussain alias Apo, Muzafar, Musaib Raza and Shazan Ali, have sought for their admission to pre-arrest bail in Crime No.18 of 2023, registered at Police Station Fatehpur (District Larkana), for offences punishable under Sections 337-A (i), 337-A (ii), 337-F (i), 114, 147, 148 and 149 P.P.C. Their similar request was turned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Larkana, vide his Order dated 06.11.2023.
2. In nutshell, the case of prosecution as per F.I.R lodged by complainant Mujahid Ali Machhi is that, on 21.9.2023 the accused party (applicants) alongwith 20/25 unknown persons while boarding in tractor trolley and motorcycles came to village of complainant at about 10.00 a.m. The accused Aslam, Suhail, Afzal alias Afoo, and Abdul Jabbar were having “Dandas” in their hands, whereas accused Muzafar was having pistil, Mohsin had “lathi”, Shahzain had “danda”. Accused Aslam and Abdul Jabbar are alleged to have instigated rest of accused not to spare complainant party, to which accused Suhail caused “danda” blow to complainant; accused Afzal caused “danda” blow to complainant; accused Arshad Ali caused “danda” blow to complainant on his head, who started bleeding; accused Muzafar, and Imtiaz caused pistol-butt blow to complainant on his face resulting into breaking of his teeth, while accused Shahzain caused “danda” blow to Imam Bux on his back; accused Abdul Jabbar caused “danda” blow to Mst. Fiza on her shoulder and accused Aslam caused “Danda” blow to Mst. Kalsoom on her head, while rest of accused caused lathi and “lathi”, kicks, fists and “danda” blows to co-villagers. The motive for the incident as set-out in the F.I.R is that the accused persons are intending and trying to occupy the plot.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that, the applicants have been implicated in this case by complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that F.I.R is delayed for about 27-days without furnishing plausible explanation; that the offences alleged agaisnt applicants do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. He further added that, there is counter version of the incident in shape of F.I.R No. 19 of 2023 lodged by applicant Aslam with same police station in respect of same incident. Lastly, learned counsel prayed for confirmation of interim pre arrest bail.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the grant of bail to applicants/ accused on the grounds that the applicants have been nominated in the F.I.R with specific role of causing multiple injuries to complainant and PWs. Whereas, learned D.P.G appearing for the State conceded for confirmation of interim pre arrest bail in view of the fact that the sections applied in the F.I.R do not fall within prohibition as contained in Section 497 Cr.P.C.
5. From tentative assessment of the record it appears that there is delay of about 27 days in lodging of the F.I.R. It is well settled law that the delay is falling within the ambit of deliberation and afterthought, therefore, it is always considered to be fatal for the prosecution case. It further reflects from record that the Sections applied in the F.I.R do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Moreover, per learned counsel there are counter cases between the parties, as according to him, the applicant Aslam has also lodged F.I.R No.19/2023 with same Police Station i.e. P.S Fatehpur. Perusal of F.I.R No.19/2023 reflects that the place of incident is different but the date of the alleged is same. In F.I.R No.19/2023, motive as set-out in both F.I.Rs, is also same. Prima-facie, it appears that, if there is no counter version of the same incident, then there appears that at-least there are counter blast cases between the same parties over same motive. Moreover, the applicants have already joined the trial and attending the trial Court regularly.
6. The case is being tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Dokri (which is lying vacant, as reported), and as such sentence for more than three years could not be visualized. The reference can be had from case of Manzoor Ali alias Mumtaz v. The State (2001 P.Cr.L.J 344) and Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 S.C 733).
7. In view of foregoing, the application in hands stands allowed. Consequently, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants vide Order dated 15.11.2023, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.
Judge
Ansari