IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

            Crl. Bail. Appln. No.S-550 of 2025                       

       

                   

DATE OF

HEARING

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE.

 

1.    For orders on O/objection at flag-A.

2.    For hearing of pre-arrest bail.

         

 

Date of hearing     04.11.2025.

 

 

Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo, Advocate for applicants.

 

Syed Sardar Ali Shah, Addl. Prosecutor General for State.

                                            ************

 

 

 

                                                O R D E R

 

         

 

          The applicants seek bail in Crime No.62 of 2025 police Station, Saleh Pat u/s 147, 148, 452, 354, 506/2, 149 PPC wherein they are  accused of harassing the complainant lady.

 

          Learned counsel for the applicants contends that Section 452 PPC is only left in the matter carrying a punishment of Seven years which comes requirement of non-prohibitory for bail whereas the other Sections now available against the present applicants also carrying the same element. He further contends that One month 24 days delay, learned counsel  has also referred to statement dated 15.09.2025 and contended that the two criminal proceedings referred therein being a Direct complaint and an FIR has been lodged by the same complainant. He relies upon the reported case of 2022 SCMR 1946 and PLD 2017 Supreme Court 730.

 

          Learned counsel for the complainant however, contends that the modesty of a woman has been violated which is not an offence by itself only but the offence against the society.

 

          Learned Additional Prosecutor General concedes to the bail available for the applicants except applicant No.4 and in respect to the other proceedings referred by the learned counsel for the applicant he states that the offence of direct complaint is of a different date and even if they come-out to be of the same date only one of the case is to proceed.

 

          Learned counsel for the complainant in the matter has referred to line-6 of the FIR though attributed to the complainant contending that the present case was required to be withdrawn.

 

Having heard the counsels and gone through the record. Apparently, applicant No.4 Sajad Hussain alias Sajjad Ali son of Wali Muhammad is directly and indirectly attributed in the present as well the other matters referred wherein apparently other persons have also been  named as such the complainant cannot be considered a habitual complainant in the matter without any other supporting material as all the proceedings are referred in each other and applicant No.4 is the common denomination. No element of malafides otherwise being shown the bail application for applicant No.4 is found not available accordingly denied whereas for the other applicants being Dilawar, Zameer Ali alias Zameer, Hubdar Ali alias Hubdar and Khan Muhammad the same stands allowed the order dated 02.07.2025 to their extent only stands confirmed on same terms and conditions.

 

 

         

          Needless to mention here that observation as above are tentative in nature and not meant to affect merits of the case before the learned trial Court.

 

Bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.

 

                                                                               J U D G E

Ihsan/PS.