2020 P Cr (PLP)

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.

By means of this bail application, applicants Liaqat Younis, Muhammad Hanif, Sadaqat Ali, Abdul Wahid, and Muhammad Rahim, have sought for pre-arrest bail in case emanating from Crime No.32 of 2019, for offence under sections 324, 506/2, 147, 148, 149, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 403, 504, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Sanjar Chang, after their plea for anticipatory bail has been declined by dismissing their Criminal bail application vide order dated 30.12.2019, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Allahyar.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants has mainly contended that applicants Liaqat Younis, Muhammad Hanif, Sadaqat Ali, Abdul Wahid, and Muhammad Rahim, have been falsely implicated in the subject crime by the complainant due to enmity over the landed property; that there is delay of five days in lodgment of the FIR, which has not been properly explained; that the offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 403, 504, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. are bailable, while section 506/2, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and whereas the applicability of section 324, P.P.C. requires further inquiry; that applicant Liaquat is U.C. Chairman of Taluka Chamber and whereas the rest of the applicants are the men of labour class. Learned counsel prays for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants. Learned Advocate for the applicants has placed his reliance on the cases of Ishaq Ali and another v. The State [2019 PCr.LJ 55], Hafiz Mohammad Shahzad v. The State [2019 MLD 1588], Tariq Mahmood v. The State and others [2019 PCr.LJ 1039], Khuda Bakhsh and others v. The State and others [2019 YLR 1622], Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State and another [2019 PCr.LJ 1297], Ashrat and another v. The State [2015 GBLR 95], Imran Azhar v. The State [2017 YLR Note 116] and Farzand Ali v. Taj and 2 others [2000 SCMR 1854].

3. Learned Advocate for the complainant placing on record the photographs of the incident submits that applicant Liaquat Younis, who is U.C. Chairman of Taluka Chamber by causing lathi blows on the head of complainant Abdul Razzaq had seriously injured him and whereas all the rest of the co-accused namely Muhammad Hanif, Sadaqat Ali, Abdul Wahid and Muhammad Rahim have also caused injuries to PWs Gul Hassan, Muhammad Sharif; Mushtaque, Naveed Hussain and Malik Dino on their heads and other parts of their bodies with iron rod, lathies and butts of Rifle and Gun; that there is no question of mala fide on the part of the complainant party to falsely implicate the applicants/accused in this case involving serious injuries to six persons. Learned counsel prays for dismissal of the bail application. Learned Advocate for the complainant has placed his reliance on the cases of Khalil Ahmed Soomro and 2 others v. The State [2019 PCr.LJ Note 109], Nasir and 2 others v. The State [2018 PCr.LJ 487], Syed Muqadas Sajjad Bokhari v. The State and another [2018 PCr.LJ Note 154], Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khan and 2 others v. The State and another [2017 YLR Note 154], Raheem Bux v. The State [2017 YLR Note 301], Muhammad Yahya v. The State [2016 PCr.LJ Note 66] and Bukhshu v. The State and another [2009 PCr.LJ 405].

4. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh endorsing the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants, contending further that the applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to the PWs, who also in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. supported the version of the complainant. The learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh prays for dismissal of instant bail application.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Advocate for the complainant and the learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh and have gone through the material brought on the record including the police file with the assistance of learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh.

6. From a perusal of the record it would be seen that all the applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to complainant Abdul Razzaque and five PWs, who in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. have supported the version of the complainant and the medical evidence is also in line with the ocular version; complainant Abdul Razzaque had three injuries on his person; of them one injury on his head specifically attributed to applicant Liaquat Younis is certified to be Shajjah-i-Hashimah constituting non-bailable offence under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. carrying punishment upto ten years and whereas two other injuries on his person and the injuries on the person of rest of the PWs namely Muhammad Sharif, Gul Hassan, Mushtaque, Naveed Hussain and Malik Dino are certified to be other hurt constituting bailable offence under section 337-L(2), P.P.C. carrying punishment upto two years; although accused Muhammad Hanif and accused Muhammad Umar were allegedly armed with Rifle and Gun respectively, yet they did not fire from their weapons and they are alleged to have caused injuries to the PWs with butts thereof and three unknown accused were allegedly armed with hatchets, but they are not alleged to have made use thereof, and the ingredients for constituting the offence under section 506/2 also seem to be lacking in this case, therefore, in my humble view applicability of sections 324, P.P.C. and 506/2, P.P.C. and vicariously liability of the applicants, is a matter, needing thorough probe at the trial; the matter is involving multiple injuries to six persons; of them injured complainant Abdul Razzaque had sustained serious injury on his vital part namely head constituting offence under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C; the photographs placed on the record by the complainant depict that applicant Liaquat Younis instead of realizing his responsibility being Chairman of local council has caused danda blows to complainant Abdul Razzaque on his head and other parts of body causing him injuries including a serious injury constituting offence under section 337-A(iii) P.P.C, therefore, in my humble view question of mala fide on the part of the complainant for false implication of the applicants does not arise and the ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail are completely lacking in this case. In the case of Rana Abdul Khaliq v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1129), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that: "Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary remedy criminal jurisdiction; it is diversion of usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent being bounded on trump up charges through abuse of the process of law, therefore a petitioner seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide; it is not a substitute for post arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of investigation." Patently, the case Law cited by the learned counsel for the applicants as far as applicant Liaquat Younis is concerned, the same is not helpful for him as none of the cases cited by the learned counsel involved the facts and circumstances as are involved in the case one in hand.

7. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the opinion that applicant Liaquat Younis, who allegedly caused injury on the head of complainant Abdul Razzaque constituting non-bailable offence under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. carrying punishment upto ten years, is not entitled to extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, more particularly, in view of the fact that the ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, are completely lacking in this case, therefore, this bail application to the extent of applicant Liaquat Younis is dismissed and order dated 01.01.2020, whereby ad interim pre-arrest bail was granted to him is re-called. Applicant Liaquat Younis is directed to surrender himself before the learned Trial court.

8. So far the question of bail to the rest of applicants namely Muhammad Hanif, Sadaqat, Abdul Wahid and Muhammad Rahim is concerned, they are alleged to have caused injuries to the PWs constituting bailable offence under section 337-L(2), P.P.C. carrying punishment upto two years, coupled with the fact that the applicability of sections 324 and 506/2, P.P.C. and their vicarious liability need further inquiry at the trial as discussed supra, therefore, in my humble view, the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to them vide order dated 01.01.2020 deserves to be confirmed. Accordingly, this bail application to their extent is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to them vide order dated 01.01.2020 is hereby confirmed. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the complainant so far the case of applicants Muhammad Hanif, Sadaqat Ali, Abdul Wahid and Muhammad Rahim is concerned, it being distinguished on facts and circumstances is not helpful for the complainant.

9. Needless to add that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding this bail application, which shall not influence the learned trial court at the time of final decision of the subject Sessions case. ADN/L-2/Sindh Pre-arrest bail confirmed.