IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Bail
Application No.680 of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
---------------------------------------------
28.04.2025
Mr. Hosh Muhammad Abbasi, advocate
for applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh
Mr. Muhammad Dawood Narejo, advocate
for applicant
------------------------------
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.—Applicant/accused Gul Hassan son of Abdullah Halo seeks
post arrest bail in FIR No.189/2024, registered
at P.S. Makli, District Thatta for
offence under sections 324, 114, 34, PPC, after rejection of their bail plea by
the trial Court vide order dated 03.12.2024.
2. Briefly,
the facts of instant case are that on 18.11.2024 at 2130 hours, on the
instigation of present applicant, co-accused Mir Hassan Halo and Pir Bux Halo,
duly armed with hatchets and lathi came to the land of Muhammad Juman Halo and
caused lathi injuries to complainant and Ghulam Hussain, hence this FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that only role of instigation has been assigned
to applicant, which requires further inquiry whereas specific role has been
assigned to co-accused Mir Hassan and Pir Bux who allegedly caused sharp sided
hatchet injuries at the head of PW Ghulam Hussain.
4. On the
other hand, learned Addl: P. G. Sindh, assisted by learned counsel for
complainant, opposed for grant of bail on the ground that applicant is nominated
in FIR and on his instigation co-accused caused injuries to the injured.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, counsel for
complainant and perused the material available on record.
6. Admittedly,
there is a delay of 2 days in lodging FIR without any plausible explanation;
that only role of instigation has been assigned to applicant/accused and
co-accused Mir Hassan and Pir Bux have caused sharp sided hatchet injuries to
PWs, which were declared bailable, except injury falling under 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. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Tanveer versus State (PLD
2017 SC 733)
7. In the
view of above, applicant/accused has made out a case for grant of post arrest
bail, therefore, post arrest bail granted to him, subject to his furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R. bond in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court.
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 either
party on merits.
9. Instant
criminal bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS