IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.2716 of 2024
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
------------------------------------------
10.03.2025
Mr. Ahmed Hussain
Jokhio, advocate for applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh
Complainant present
------------------------------------
SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI,
J.—Applicants/accused Muhammad
Ali Jokhio and Punhoon Jokhio seek pre-arrest bail in FIR No.02/2024, registered at
P.S. Ghorabari, District Thatta
for offence under sections 337-(ii), 337-L(ii), 337-A(i), 114, 34, PPC, after
rejection of their bail plea by the trial Court vide order dated 26.01.2024.
2. Briefly,
the facts of instant case are that in the alleged incident applicant Muhammad
Ali caused hatchet blow to complainant at his head and applicant Punhoon caused iron rod blow to him, hence the subject FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicants submits that all the sections applied in the FIR are bailable, except section 337-A(ii),
which does not fall with the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.PC; that there is delay of 14 days in lodging of FIR,
without any plausible explanation; that applicant Muhammad Ali is complainant
in a case of illegal dispossession filed by him against the complainant of this
case.
4. On the
other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh opposed for grant of
bail on the ground that applicants/accused are
nominated in FIR and ocular version is corroborated by medical evidence.
However, she admits that offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory
clause of Section 497, Cr.PC.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Prosecutor
General Sindh and perused the material available on record.
6. Admittedly,
there is delay of 14 days in lodging of FIR, without plausible explanation and
in the background of enmity, it cannot be ruled out that FIR has been lodged by
complainant after due deliberation and consultation as applicant Muhammad Ali
has filed case of illegal dispossession against him. However, all the sections
applied in the aforesaid FIR are bailable, except
section 337-A(ii), PPC, which does not fall within the
ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC. In
such like cases, rule is grant of bail and its refusal is an exception.
Moreover, no purpose would be served out if pre-arrest bail is refused to the
applicants and thereafter they will be admitted to post arrest bail. Trial
Court has recorded statement of complainant; the case is now fixed for
recording of evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses and the trial in
progress.
7. In the
view of above, applicants/accused have made out a case for grant of pre-arrest
bail, therefore, interim pre-arrest bail granted to them by this Court vide
order dated 04.12.2024 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
8. Needless
to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature,
the same would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the
applicant/accused on merits.
9. Instant
criminal bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS