ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Cr. Bail Appln. No.S- 1208 of 2014

DATE         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

                        1. For orders on office objection

                        2. For hearing.

26.12.2014.

                        Applicant present on interim pre-arrest bail.

Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, Assistant P.G.

Complainant present in person.

                                                =

                                    =

SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J:                       Through instant application applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 62/2014, Police Station Khadhar, U/s 324, 337-H(ii), 435, 34 PPC.

2.        Precisely the allegation against applicant is that he got documents from his father (complainant) on the pretext of Hajj and changed the Khata of land and documents of house situated in Sakrand town in his own name. Complainant filed applications and registered case against him thus was annoyed. On 11.07.2014 applicant alongwith two unidentified persons attacked upon complainant (his father) and made fire upon him with intention to commit his murder and unidentified accused set on fire the hedge of house and made aerial firing and decamped. Complainant (his father) moved application to SSP Shaheed Benazirabad and on his order instant FIR was registered.

3.        Applicant moved pre-arrest bail application before trial Court but by order dated 06.11.2014 such application was dismissed hence he approached this Court and succeeded in getting interim pre-arrest bail on 11.11.2014.

4.        Notices were issued to Additional Prosecutor General Sindh and complainant. On many occasions counsel for applicant sought time thereafter on 23.12.2014 applicant changed his counsel and matter was adjourned on 26.12.2014 on such date his counsel failed to file Vakalatnama and argue instant application. However, applicant as well as complainant was heard in person because the principle of law is that the opportunity to argue / hearing should be given to parties but such right cannot be allowed to be exercised in a manner and fashion to avoid the process of law.

5.        The applicant / accused has requested to consider the grounds of bail plea as arguments and further claimed the FIR to be falsely lodged against him.

6.        On the other hand, the learned APG opposed the bail plea.

7.        The complainant, being present, on allowing an opportunity of hearing, submitted that applicant / accused is his real son but not only committed fraud upon him (complainant) but also made a murderous assault upon the complainant while forgetting his (complainant’s) status as ‘father’. He prayed for dismissal of bail plea.

8.        It has been alleged that applicant has taken documents of house so also the documents of land on the pretext of performing Hajj and obtained signatures of his father and got the title in his own name and on 11.07.2014 he along-with his companions, duly armed with pistols, attacked upon his own father aged about 80 years and made fire upon him and set on fire the hedge of his house. The allegation, attributed against the applicant / accused, has come from mouth of the complainant who is, undisputedly, a real father of the accused (present applicant) and it cannot be logically or morally believed that a father (retired teacher) would falsely involve his own son for an act of an attempt of his own murder. The applicant is specifically nominated in the FIR and his presence at place of incident is undeniable and he has made overt act in the commission of offence of firing upon his own father. No doubt there is delay for about 6 days but such delay alone is not sufficient to insist as a sole ground for extending extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail to the applicant / accused. The delay, even otherwise, stood explained by prosecution as complainant moved application before SSP Shaheed Benazirabad which was forwarded to P.S whereupon his statement was recorded and thereafter instant FIR was registered. FIR against applicant was not shown to have been lodged due to the malafides of the police or the complainant which was the precondition for grant of pre-arrest bail.

9.        The object of Section 498 Cr.P.C is to prevent innocent persons from being unnecessarily harassment by arresting in the case (s), initiated for some ulterior motives. It is, prima facie, to be shown by the accused that they are being subject to humiliation and unjustified harassment with ulterior motive and their intended arrest in the case is motivated with malice or ulterior motives. In the instant case applicant has not been able to explain the pre-requisite conditions for grant of pre-arrest bail i.e plea of unjustified harassment and malafides of intended arrest hence the failure thereof shall cost the applicant / accused for dismissal of his bail plea, particularly when the applicant / accused, otherwise, appear to be linked with commission of the offence with which he stands charged.

10.      Keeping in view given circumstances, applicant has failed to make out the case within exceptions hence he is not entitled for bail. Resultantly, by short order dated 26.12.2014 his bail application was dismissed and interim order was recalled.

Dt:       01.01.2015.                                                                                    JUDGE

A.H.