2020 PLP 1729 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.

Through this application, applicant Muhammad Juman Jumani, seeks his admission on pre-arrest bail in Crime No.133 of 2019, registered at Police Station Phuleli, under sections 336, 506, P.P.C. read with section 337-T, P.P.C. Earlier the bail plea raised by applicant before first forum was declined by means of order dated 09.10.2019, hence this application.

2. Since facts of prosecution case are already mentioned in the F.I.R. as well memo of bail application, therefore, no need to reproduce the same herein again.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that alleged incident as evident from the FIR is said to have taken place on 14.07.2019 whereas FIR thereof was lodged on 30.09.2019 after about 76 days. He next submits that injured / P.W. Ghulam Abbas had sustained electric current / shock due to fall of 11000 KV conductor / wire but at the time of incident the applicant was not present. He next submits that applicant is government servant and working as Sub-Divisional Officer, hence, question of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence does not arise if he is admitted on bail and that the alleged act of the applicant is to the extent of threats which is yet to be proved by the prosecution at trial after recording evidence of both the parties, therefore, the case against the applicant requires further inquiry. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the cases of Ihsanullah alias Sanu v. The State through Additional Advocate General and another (2015 YLR 2592), Khadim v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 1668), Akbar v. The State (1989 PCr.LJ 1221) and Shahid Durrani v. The State (1997 MLD 1901).

4. On other hand, learned Counsel for the complainant while opposing the bail application has submitted that offence with which the applicant has been charged carries maximum punishment of 10 years and thus falls under prohibition clause of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. He further submits that injured / P.W Ghulam Abbas has been made disable of his two fingers permanently, thus, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out, therefore, prays for dismissal of instant application. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the cases of Sadaqat Asghar Hussain v. The State (2017 YLR 2364) and Muhammad Raza (2017 YLR 872).

5. Learned A.P.G appearing for the State submits that contents of FIR would indicate that section 336, P.P.C. has wrongly been applied and only section 337-T, P.P.C. would have been applied. She further submits that punishment provided by law for Section 337-T, P.P.C. is 20th of Diyat amount and no punishment in terms of imprisonment is provided. She; however, does not oppose the bail application.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material made available before me on record.

7. Admittedly, the FIR is delayed for about 76 days and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay. The applicant being Sub-Divisional Officer of the area had no intention to cause injury to any of the citizen including injured / P.W. Ghulam Abbas as broken electric wire / conductor, which occurred due to heavy rains, is an unpredictable event that resulted into occurrence of natural causes which is entirely irresistible and uncontrollable. In this context, reliance can be made from the case of Tabish Gauhar v. The State (2016 PCr.LJ 1398). it is settled law by now that mere heinousness of an offence or the punishment provided by the law, whether maximum or larger, is no ground to withhold the bail of an accused or individual if otherwise on merits he has got good case in his favour. The delay, particularly, in criminal cases has always been held by the Superior Courts, is fatal for the prosecution case, therefore, same should be beneficial for the accused and not for the prosecution in absence of any plausible explanation of such delay. The applicant is a government servant and question of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence does not arise and if he is put behind the bars he will not only lose his liberty but also his service through which. his entire family depends upon, therefore, the basic ingredients for grant of' pre-arrest bail as has been enshrined, by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427) are fully attracted in this case. Consequently, instant bail application is allowed. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant in terms of order dated 11.10.2019 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

8. Needless to mention that observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on merits.

9. As reported, the case has already been challaned by police, which is now pending for trial. Hence, the applicant / accused present is directed to continue his appearance before the trial Court till final decision of main case. The trial Court is also directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible under intimation to this Court through Additional Registrar. Copy of order be communicated to the trial Court through Sessions Judge, Hyderabad over fax today for compliance. ADN/M-37/Sindh Bail confirmed.