2004 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 2003. Through this application, the applicants/accused have prayed that they may be admitted on bail before arrest in Crime No.66 of 2001 of P S. Sultan Kot for an offence under sections 337-A(i), (ii), 337-F(i), 147, 148, 114 and 504, P.P.C.

2. The F.I.R. of the said crime was registered on 25-8-2001 at the complaint of Hakim Ali at Police Station Sultan Kot, District Shikarpur. The applicants/accused preferred bail application in the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur on 3-9-2001 and on the said day the said Court granted interim bail before arrest subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.30,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount. The applicants/accused remained on interim bail up to 30-9-2003, as the bail of co-accused Haji Rab Dino alias Raban was confirmed whereas the bail application of the applicants/accused was dismissed by an impugned order, dated 30-9-2003.

3. It is, inter alia contended that on 16-8-2001 prior to the lodging of the Crime No.66 of 2001 victim Sanaullah being applicant at S.No.2 lodged an FIR of Crime No.60 of 2001 under section 18 Offence of Zina Hudood Ordinance read with section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and applicant Wazir Ali is the prosecution witness and applicant Sanaullah is the complainant in that case whereas applicant Shahmir has acted as Mashir of Vardat and co-applicant Abdul Khair is cousin of complainant. It is further contended that there are general allegations that accused had causes Lathi blows to the complainant and no specific role against each of the accused is described in the F.I.R. The present F.I.R. has been lodged mala fidely with ulterior motive to cow down to enter into Faisala and present case is out shoot of Crime No:60 of .2001. As per medical certificate complainant Hakim Ali has sustained seven injuries and, only one injury on his head which has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. and the ocular evidence is in conflict with the medical evidence. Mr. Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram, learned counsel for the applicants in support of his arguments, has relied upon the case of Master Dur Muhammad v. State 1994 PCr.LJ 1769 and submits that due to previous enmity the F.I.R. against the applicants/accused had been registered and all the family members have been joined as an accused in the F.I.R. and the police party is trying for their arrest and the applicants/accused will be subjected to humiliation ,at the hands of concerned police personnel with their mala fide intention and undue harassment be extended.

4. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has conceded that F.I.R. Crime No.60 of 2001 was registered at the same police station and the complainant party try to outrange modesty of such hue and cry and witnesses namely Gulshan, Muhammad Hashim and Wazir Ali has cited as witnesses in the case whereas applicant Shahmir has acted as Mashir of Vardat and Abul Khair related. He has not opposed the grant of bail before arrest to the applicant accused, as the injuries sustained by the complainant party have not been attributed specifically to any of the applicants.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and examined the documents placed on record and the case-law cited at the Bar.

6. Admittedly as per F.I.R. it is alleged that applicants/accused have caused Lathi blows to the complainant, but it is not alleged that who caused which injury to the complainant. Applicant Sanaullah is one of the accused in the present case, who had lodged F.I.R. against the complainant party on 16-8-2001 for attempting to commit sodomy. There are reasonable grounds for grant of pre-arrest bail, as the prosecution is motivated to involve the applicants/accused in the present case. The Crime No.66 of 2001 was disposed of as cancelled class and their bail was dismissed by the trial Court on 12-3-2002 and up to this time final report has not been filed in the Court having jurisdiction and they sought interim pre-arrest bail from the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur on 3-9-2001 and they remained on bail for sufficient long time. The applicants/accused have made out a case for interference for grant of pre-arrest bail.

7. Resultantly, pre-arrest bail is granted subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. The applicants/accused are directed to appear before the I.O. or before the trial Court as and when directed. The Criminal Bail Application No.498 of 2003 stands disposed of. H.B.T./W-3/K Pre-arrest bail granted.