2025 PLP 1959 (YLR)

Amjad Ali Sahito, J.

Both the above captioned bail applications and a criminal miscellaneous application are arising out of one and same crime No.362/2024 registered at PS Kotri for the offence punishable under sections 324, 147, 149, 452, 337-A (i), 337-F (i), 114, 504, 506 P.P.C., as such, the same are disposed of by this single order.

2. Through Criminal Bail Application No S-936 of 2024. applicants/respondents namely, Nadir Ali, Amir Khan, Mohammad Aslam and Mohammad Awais are seeking pre-arrest bail in the above mentioned crime while through Criminal Bail Application No.S-983 of 2024 applicant Sikandar Ali seeks post-arrest bail. The bail pleas of the applicants were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Kotri through respective impugned orders dated 21 08.2024. Whereas, complainant Mst. Sadori through Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.S-568 of 2024 seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondents/accused Naseer Ahmed alias Kandoo, Ghulam Murtaza, Basheer Ahmed and Muhammad Sajjan vide order dated 21.08.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotri.

3. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, the same could be gathered from the copy of the FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused contends that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity over matrimonial affairs between the parties that there is difference between ocular and medical evidence, that the applicants/accused have no concern with the alleged offence. He contends that there is mala fine on the complainant due to dispute over matrimonial affairs. He further contends that the respondents/ accused namely, Naseer Ahmed, Ghulam Murtaza, Bashir Ahmed and Muhammad Sajjan have rightly been admitted to pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court and that there is misuse of the concession of bail nor repeated such offence or interfered with the investigation and no fresh material has been collected by the I.O against them. He further contends that there is no material on record to connect the applicants/accused with the alleged offence. Lastly he prayed for grant of bail to the applicants in the bail applications and dismissal of criminal miscellaneous application by relying upon the cases reported as PLD 1995 SC 34, 2009 MLD 21, 2013 MLD 831, 2022 MLD 1088, 2014 PCr.L.J 1719 and 2015 YLR 2595.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.G. Sindh and learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant have vehemently opposed the grant of bail in favour of applicants/accused. However, learned counsel for complainant states that names of the applicants/accused are appearing in the FIR with specific role but these things were not considered by the learned trial Court and simply granted bail on the ground that section 324 PCP is not applicable in this case otherwise, learned trial Court has not discussed the mala fide on the part of the applicants/accused and these elements which are essential for grant of bail.

6. Investigating Officer present in Court states that in fact the police conducted a raid at the direction of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.S-229 of 2024 vide order dated 16.08.2024 for the recovery of Mst. Sanam, the daughter of complainant Mst. Sadori and in pursuance of Court direction when police reached on the pointed place, the nominated accused persons duly armed with hatchet, lathis and iron rods disallowed the police party to enter in the house to recover the alleged detainee Mst. Sanam and caused injuries to the complainant party.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. From the perusal of record, it reflects that the names of all the applicants/accused is appearing in the FIR with specific role that on the day of incident all the accused persons with common intention duly armed with hatchet, lathis and iron rods respectively did not allow the police party to enter inside the house of relative Nazar Ahmed and the everyone accused has given hatchet, lathis and iron rods blows to the injured persons. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer of the case has also confirmed this contention raised by the complainant that when they in pursuance of this Court's order tried to recover the alleged detainee Mst. Sanam the daughter of complainant the accused party did not allow but they made resistance and attacked upon the complainant party who received multiple injuries, as such, instant FIR was registered.

9. So far the contentions raised on behalf of the complainant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application 568 of 2024 are concerned, admittedly all the accused have been nominated in the FIR with specific role that they have caused injuries to the complainant party. The ocular evidence finds support from the medical evidence. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the version of complainant. The complainant party received injuries on the different parts of their bodies.

10. The applicants/accused have deliberately attempted to obstruct the legal process by resisting compliance with the Court's directions, particularly in relation to the police being directed to conduct a raid for the recovery of Mst. Sanam, the daughter of the complainant. Such resistance to lawful directives not only indicates a lack of cooperation with the authorities but also amounts hindrance to the investigation or tampering with evidence. Therefore, these factors establish a compelling case for the denial of bail emphasizing the gravity of the offense, the involvement of the accused and their interference with the course of justice. The resistance on the part of the applicants/accused to complying with Court orders can be interpreted as a sign to commit further offenses or engage in acts that may hinder the investigation or tamper with evidence. This refusal to abide by Court directions reflects a disregard for the rule of law, reinforcing the necessity of denying bail in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, ensure the presence of applicants/accused during trial and prevent any obstruction or disruption to ongoing investigations. Furthermore, there appears to be no mala fide objective on the part of the complainant's party. It is also a well-established legal principle that, at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the case is to be made.

11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants has failed to make out the case for further inquiry as envisaged in subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently, both the criminal bail applications are dismissed and resultantly, internim pre-arrest bail granting order dated 26.06.2024 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. S. 936/2024 is hereby recalled. Whereas, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No S-568/2024 is allowed and resultantly, the bail granted to respondents/accused namely Naseer Ahmed alias Kandoo, Ghulam Murtaza, Basheer Ahmed and Muhammad Sajjan is hereby cancelled. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial Court for its information and compliance.

12. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the case of the applicants on merits. JK/N-17/Sindh Order accordingly.