2001 P Cr (PLP)

This Criminal Bail Application No.65 of 1998 was filed by the applicant Liaquat Ali, Nazir Ahmed and Gul Muhammad on 26‑3‑1998 and on 3‑4‑1998 they were granted interim pre‑arrest bail without touching the merits of the case. Ad interim bail granted to applicant Gul Muhammad was recalled and his plea of bail before arrest was dismissed because of his non‑appearance and the matter was adjourned to 17‑4‑1998 for confirmation of the bail or otherwise in respect of the remaining two applicants. On 17‑4‑1998 the same applicant Gul Muhammad whose application was dismissed because of the non‑appearance, filed fresh application as Criminal Bail Application No.93 of 1998 and he was granted ad interim pre arrest bail as the State Counsel has no objection. On 8‑5‑1998 the Criminal Bail Application No.65 of 1998 in respect of the applicant Liaqat Ali, Nazir Ahmed and Criminal Bail Application No .93 of 1998 of applicant Gul Muhammad, were placed for confirmation of bail or otherwise. These two bail applications are being disposed of by this common order as the same arise from the same crime. According to the F.I.R. the complainant Habibullah lodged report with Police Station Dari, District Larkana stating therein that on 9‑1‑1998 Liaquat Ali son of complainant and one Ehsan Ali (accused in the present case) had exchanged harsh words over the matter relating to electricity problem and had caused kicks and fists blows and the matter was reported to the police. Two days thereafter viz. 11‑1‑1998 the complainant alongwith his sons Azizullah, and Liaquat Ali were sitting in the house when Ehsan son of Gal Muhammad, Inayatullah son of Gal Muhammad, Liaquat Ali son of Gal Muhammad, Manzoor son of Gal Muhammad Nazir son of Gul Muhammad alongwith three unknown persons having Lathies entered in the house of complainant arid asked as to why the complainant lodged the report with the police station and thereafter Ehsan Mugheri gave Lathi blow to Liaquat Ali which hit him on the mouth and his two teeth were broken, Inayatullah gave Lathi blow on the head of complainant and the complainant further stated that two persons armed with Lathies also gave Lathi blows to the complainant and Liaquat Ali. The complainant filed such report with Police Station Dari, District Larkana and same was registered as F.I.R. No.6 of 1998 for Offences under sections 337‑A(i), 337(ii), 452, 147, 148, 149 and 504, P.P.C. The applicants alongwith co‑accused Ehsan has filed application for bail before arrest and the applicants were granted interim pre‑arrest bail but it was not confirmed and the application was finally dismissed on 12‑3‑1998, hence the present bail applications. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that according to F.I.R. there are 8 persons shown in the F .I.R, amongst to whom three ace said to be unknown while five persons are named into F.I.R. including the present these applicants. The injury said to have been received by the injured Liaquat Ali on his mouth on account of which his two teeth were broken is attributed to accused Ehsan Ali Mugheri who is not applicant before this Court. The other injury caused on the head of complainant is attributed to Inayatullah who is also not applicant before this Court. The rest of injuries are alleged and attributed to two persons said to be armed with Lathies but they are not named and, therefore, it can be said that those injuries are not caused by present applicants named in the F.I.R. The learned counsel has, therefore, urged that the case of present applicants is quite distinguishable as the accused Ehsan and Inayatullah Mugheri alongwith two other persons armed with Lathis are attributed the role of causing the injuries and not the present applicants, therefore, it requires further inquiry that whether the present applicant, not specifically named, caused any injury to the complainant and his son. The learned counsel has further argued that the applicants have remained on bail since last four months time except the period from the date of rejection of their bail applications by the Sessions Court till grant of pre‑arrest bail by the Court and further that the applicants have not misused the concession of bail and they have joined the investigation. Lastly the learned counsel has argued that the present applicants are involved on account of enmity as their brother had exchanged harsh words two days prior to the date of lodging the report as admitted by the complainant himself. Learned counsel for the applicants have also placed reliance on the following case‑law:‑‑ (1) 1987 SCMR 1522, (2) 1994 PCr.LJ 1769, (3) 1992 MLD 1914 and (4) PLD 1989 SC

346. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto appearing for the State at the very outset raised no objection to the confirmation of bail on the ground that no specific injury is attributed to any of the applicants, and therefore, their case requires further inquiry and further that the applicants have remained on bail and they have joined the investigation and according to him they are no more required for the purpose of investigation. Complainant present in persons has prayed for the dismissal of the bail application on the ground that the applicants are dangerous persons and were advancing threats to him. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case‑law cited by counsel for the applicants. The applicants named in the F.I.R. are not said to have caused any specific injury to the complainant or to the injured who is the son of the complainant. The injuries received by them are attributed to co‑accused Ehsan and Inayatullah and other two persons and they have not applied for bail. If any of the applicants had caused injury to the complainant or his son then such allegation would have been made by the complainant in the F.I.R. giving the name of applicants. The applicants have remained on bail since last four months and on enquiry the State Counsel has stated that case is challaned and the applicants are not required for the purpose of investigation. The contention of the complainant that the applicants have misused) the concession of bail by advancing threats require enquiry and thus, the, same not be accepted in this manner. In view of the above circumstances and the case‑law cited by the) learned counsel for the applicants and the Advocate for the State has raiseaj no objection to the confirmation of bail granted earlier to the applicants. Therefore, the interim bail granted to the applicants is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. These are the reasons in support of shore orders passed on 8‑5‑1998. N.H.Q./G‑41/K Pre‑arrest bail granted