THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail No.S-447 of 2021
Applicant: Ghulam Akbar alias Akbar alias Ali Akbar through M/s. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro and Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocates.
Complainant: Inayat Hussain through Mr. Sundar Khan Chacar, Advocate.
Respondent: The State
Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Date of hearing: 07.11.2022
Date of Order: 07.11.2022
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 35/2020, offence under Sections 302, 506/2, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-H(ii), 114, 148 & 149 PPC of the Police Station Khanpur District Shikarpur. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of I-Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Shikarpur vide order dated 17.07.2020; hence they filed instant Criminal Bail Application.
2. The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application and F.I.R., same could not gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Per learned counsel, the applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that the F.I.R. is delayed about one day without any plausible explanation by the complainant and false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. He further added that from the face of F.I.R. it appears that there is previous hostility between the parties. As such, he prayed that false implication cannot be ruled out; that after grant of bail the applicant/accused has joined the investigation and his name was placed in column-2 of the F.I.R., but learned Magistrate did not agree with the opinion of the Investigating Officer as such he has taken the cognizance of the offence. He further added that at the time of incident the applicant/accused was present before the office of this Court. In support of his contentions, he has placed copy of C.P.No.D-124 of 2020 and the affidavit in support of the petition time is mentioned as 02:25 p.m., whereas the incident had taken place at about 01:00 p.m. and the distance between the place of incident and this Court is about 80 k.m and it is impossible for the applicant that he after the incident rushed here and filed the above said petition. He further added that the case has been challaned and the accused is attending the Court regularly and he has not misused the concession of bail and is no more required for further enquiry. Lastly, learned counsel prayed for grant of bail to the applicants/accused.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned D.P.G have vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused and submit that bail of co-accused namely Ali Gul and Amanullah have also been dismissed by this Court. However, in a query, he admits that names of both the co-accused had been placed in column-2. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon an un-reported Order passed in Criminal Bail Application No.S-67 of 2020 and submits that on similar facts and circumstances this Court had dismissed the bail application of the applicant.
5. Heard and perused. Admittedly, name of the applicant/accused has appeared in the F.I.R., but no specific role has been assigned to him, whereas there is involvement of as many as 12 persons in the incident. It is apparent from the face of the case that at the time of incident, the applicant was present before the Affidavit Branch of this Court at about 02:25 p.m. as he had filed C.P.No.D-124 of 2020 (Re-Ghulam Akbar v/s. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Revenue Department and five others). As per learned counsel for the applicant the distance between the Court and place of incident is about 80 kilometers and it is impossible for the applicant that after committing offence he rushed here and filed the said petition. He further added that on the basis of documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer placed the name of the applicant in challan (report under section 173 Cr.P.C.) in column-2, but the learned Magistrate did not agree with the report and taken cognizance of the offence.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has taken plea that prior to this co-accused namely Ali Gul and Amanullah filed Criminal Bail Application No.S-269/2020 (Re-Ali Gul and another v/s. The State), the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2020 having no force. The case of the present applicant is quite distinguishable from the case of co-accused as the present applicant claimed that at the time of incident he was present before this Court. Further after thorough investigation, the name of the applicant was placed in column-2 of the challan sheet. There is no complaint that after grant of bail applicant/accused has misused the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused pleaded malafide on the part of the complainant that in view of the previous enmity the applicant has been implicated in this case otherwise he is innocent. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out case for grant of bail under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. The challan has been submitted and the applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation and it is yet seen by the learned trial Court after adducing evidence whether the applicant was present at the time of incident before this Court or at the place of incident. Learned counsel for the applicants has also pleaded malafide on the part of the complainant that due to previous enmity he has involved as many as 12 persons in the offence.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed interim pre-arrest granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 30.09.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and condition.
8. 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