IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.68 of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
------------------------------------------
13.03.2025
Mr. Tariq Majeed,
advocate for applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh
SIP Deedar
Hussain of PS Madina
Colony, Keamari
------------------------------------
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.—Applicant/accused Jeetan son of Ramji seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.384/2024, registered at P.S. Madina
Colony, Keamari, Karachi for offence under sections
337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 337-F(ii), 342, 506-B, PPC, after rejection of their bail
plea by the trial Court vide order dated 09.12.2024.
2. Briefly,
the facts of instant case are that complainant lodged FIR in which it is stated
that on 10.11.2024 at 11:30 pm he was beaten by Kamal, his wife and other
unknown persons at Scholar Pizza, to whom he will identify when
appear before him, hence the subject FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant/accused is innocent and he has
been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity; that there is delay of five
days in lodging of FIR, without any plausible explanation; 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 case of applicant requires further
inquiry in term of Section 497(2), Cr.PC. Notice was
issued to the complainant but he is called absent.
4. On the
other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh opposed for grant of
bail on the ground that applicant/accused is nominated in FIR with specific
role of causing injury to complainant by sharp cutting weapon, which has been
declared under section 337-A(ii), PPC, 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 applicant as well as learned Additional Prosecutor
General Sindh and perused the material available on record.
6. Admittedly,
there is delay of 5 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. 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 bail and its refusal is an exception. Moreover, no
purpose would be served out if pre-arrest bail is refused to the applicant and
thereafter he will be admitted to post arrest bail. Reliance is placed on the
case of MUHAMMAD TANVEER versus STATE (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733)
7. In the
view of above, applicant/accused has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest
bail, therefore, interim pre-arrest bail granted to him by this Court vide
order dated 09.01.2025 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