IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Application No.S-94 of 2025

Applicant:                                         Rajab s/o Inayatullah @ Inayat Samejo

                                                            Though Mr. Imdad Ali Tunio, Advocate

The State:                                         Through, Mr. Nazir Ali Bhangwar, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh

Date of hearing:                             05-03-2025

Date of order:                                 05-03-2025

O R D E R

Khalid Hussain Shahani, J.- Through the instant criminal bail application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in a case bearing  Crime No. 02/2025, offence under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 147, and 148  PPC of  Police Station Kashmore. The applicant’s plea for pre-arrest bail was previously declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, vide order dated 27-01-2025.

2. The details and contents of the First Information Report (FIR) are already incorporated within the bail application and can be referred to through the copy of the FIR annexed there

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to pre-existing enmity between the parties. He further argued that there is an unexplained delay of 16 days in lodging the FIR, which creates serious doubts regarding the veracity of the allegations. The learned counsel emphasized that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., as the alleged offence does not carry a punishment exceeding ten years, thereby making the grant of bail a rule rather than an exception, as per the principles laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). He also pointed out that the co-accused, namely Inayatullah and 03 others have already been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot. Therefore, by applying the rule of consistency, the applicant is also entitled to the same relief. Accordingly, he prayed for confirmation of pre-arrest bail, asserting that the applicant's case is at par with that of the co-accused who have been extended similar concession.

4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh, has submitted that the applicant has been specifically nominated in the FIR for his alleged role in inflicting an injury upon the complainant, Sajawal, using an iron pipe. However, he has not been able to refute the fact that the injury sustained by the complainant, attributed to the applicant, carries a maximum punishment of five years under PPC. Consequently, the offence in question does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.

5. According to the prosecution's account, the alleged incident took place on 19-12-2024, whereas the case was registered belatedly on 04-01-2025, with an unexplained delay of 16 days. No plausible justification has been provided for such an excessive and questionable delay, which raises doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution’s version. The applicant has been explicitly nominated in the FIR, and he is alleged to have struck the complainant, Sajawal, on the hand with an iron pipe. However, the Medico-Legal Officer has classified the injury as Jurh-Ghayr-Jaifa-Hashimah, which falls under section 337-F(v) PPC and carries a maximum punishment of five years. 

6. Given the nature of the injury and the applicable legal provisions, the case is triable by a Magisterial Court, where even in the worst-case scenario, the sentence is unlikely to exceed three years. Furthermore, there is an apparent matrimonial dispute between the parties, raising the possibility of false implication, which cannot be overlooked. Additionally, co-accused Inayatullah and three others have already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, thereby entitling the applicant to similar relief under the principle of consistency.

7. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the aforementioned factors, it is evident that the applicant has successfully established a prima facie case for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant on 24-02-2025 is hereby confirmed under the same terms and conditions. The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigation and to attend trial proceedings as and when required by the competent court.

J U D G E

S.Ashfaq/-