THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

1^st Criminal Bail No.S-370 of 2023

Applicant:            Moriro alias More Khan son of Mubarak Sabzoi through Mr. Aftab Ahmed Channa, Advocate.

Complainant:      Noor Khan Sabzoi through Mr. Abdul Rahman A. Bhutto, Advocate.

The State:            Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh a/w PDSP Syed Hajan Shah.

Date of hearing:  03.08.2023

Date of Order:     03.08.2023

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant/accused Moriro alias More Khan seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 50/2023, offence under Sections 337-F(i)(v), 337-L(ii), 147, 148 P.P.C of the Police Station         B-Section Kandhkot. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kandhkot vide Order dated 31.05.2023; hence he filed instant Criminal Bail Application.

2.                DSP Legal Syed Hajan Shah on behalf of SSP Kashmore at Kandhkot is present and filed reply to the Show Cause Notice, which is found satisfactory and taken on record.  The Show Cause Notice is hereby vacated.

3.                The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application and F.I.R., same could be gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

4.                Per learned counsel, the applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that the F.I.R. is delayed about seven days and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that co-accused Imamuddin and Bahawal have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court.  At this juncture, learned counsel for the complainant controverted that due to compromise both the accused have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court.  He further contended that injury attributed to the applicant/accused does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. and there is counter version and it is yet to be determined that who is aggressor and who is aggressed upon; as such the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail.

5.                On the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant accused.

6.                Heard and perused. No doubt the name of the applicant/accused has been appeared in the F.I.R. with specific role that on the day of incident, he alongwith other five co-accused appeared at the place of incident and by raising lalkana, the applicant caused lathi blow on the shoulder of complainant Noor Khan, resultantly he received injury and as per medical certificate, the injury was certified to be section 337-F(v) P.P.C.  The ocular evidence finds support from the medical evidence. The prosecution witnesses have also supported the version of the complainant. At bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made. No ill-will or malafide has been pointed by the learned counsel for the applicant for false implication of the applicant in this case, which is necessary for grant of pre-arrest bail and the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are not applicable to the present case.  Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out the case for further investigation. Accordingly, instant Criminal Bail Application is dismissed having no merits. Consequently, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 10.07.2023 is hereby recalled.

7.                Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

                                J U D G E

Manzoor