PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 14
[Sindh High Court, Circuit Court Hyderabad]
Present: Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J.
HABIB AHMED—Applicant/Accued
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. B. Appln. No. S-981 of 2022, decided on 26.9.2022.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(vi), 337-F(i), 506(2), 504, 34--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Delay in lodging of FIR--Allegation of--The FIR in instant case was registered after a delay of 29 days for which no plausible explanation has been given--As per contents of F.I.R. allegation leveled against applicant is that he had pointed pistol upon injured Muhammad Ramzan father of complainant, and caught hold from his neck--Previously an FIR was registered against complainant by applicant party on issue of subject plot and Civil Suit has been filed by co-accused in which applicant is shown as his witness of agreement of sale against Injured which is pending adjudication before Court of Senior Civil Judge Matli--The said factum could be looked into while granting pre-arrest bail in view of dictum laid down--Prima-facie case of applicant requires further inquiry in terms of Section 498-A Cr P.C., for reason that there is civil litigation as well as criminal litigation between parties over subject plot--A prima facie doubt has arisen qua authenticity of complainant’s case--Bail petition allowed. [Para 6, 7 & 8] A, B & C
Mr. Muhammad Fayaz Arain, Advocate for Applicant alongwith applicant (on bail).
Mr. Nazar Muhammad Memon, Additional PG. for State.
Haji Khan Muhammad Kashmiri, Advocate files power on behalf of Complainant, taken on record.
Date of hearing: 26.9.2022.
Order
Through this bail application, applicant Habib Ahmed seeks his admission on pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 127/2022 Police Station Matli for the offence punishable under Section 337-F(vi), 337-F(I), 506(2), 504, 34, PPC. The bail plea raised by him before the trial Court was declined vide order dated 07.09 2022 on the analogy that the applicant had pointed the pistol upon injured Muhammad Ramzan the father of complainant and caught hold from his neck.
2. It is the case of prosecution that on 23.07.2022, applicant along with his accomplices came at the place of incident and abused the Complainant party and directed them to stop the work, in the meanwhile applicant aimed pistol at his father and dragged him from neck whereas main accused Ahmed Magsı hit iron rod at his left leg. The report of such incident was made to the concerned police station. After registration of FIR, police conducted investigation and after completing, the formalities submitted challan before the competent Court of law having jurisdiction in the matter.
3. Mr. Muhammad Fayaz Arain learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case; that there is civil dispute pending between the parties and just to convert it into criminal proceedings, the complainant has lodged this false FIR with a delay of about 29 days without any plausible explanation; that the offenses with which applicant has been charged are carrying punishment not more than 07 years and thus does not exceed the limits of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Per learned counsel it is mala fide on the part of complainant, who in connivance with the police has dragged the applicant in the present case. He, lastly prayed that interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant may be confirmed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Nazar Muhammad Memon, learned Additional P.G. assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposes the boil application on the ground that the applicant is nominated in FIR with specific role, however, they could not controvert the fact that there is inordinate delay of 29 days in lodgment of FIR and that the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record with their assistance.
6. The FIR in the instant case was registered after a delay of 29 days for which no plausible explanation has been given. As per the contents of F.I.R. the allegation leveled against the applicant is that he had pointed the pistol upon injured Muhammad Ramzan the father of complainant, and caught hold from his neck.
7. The perusal of record reveals that previously an FIR was registered against the complainant by the applicant party on the issue of subject plot and Civil Suit No. 64 of 2022 has been filed by co-accused Ahmed Magsi in which the applicant is shown as his witness of agreement of sale bearing No. 818 dated 7.2.2022 against the injured Muhammad Ramzan which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge Matli. The said factum could be looked into while granting pre-arrest bail in view of the dictum laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Miran Bux v The State (PLD 1989 SC 347). Besides, the offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. Prima-facie the case of the applicant requires further inquiry in terms of Section 498-A Cr P.C., for the reason that there is civil litigation as well as criminal litigation between the parties over the subject plot. In these circumstances, a prima facie doubt has arisen qua the authenticity of complainant’s case, on the aforesaid factum of the case.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the applicant has succeeded to make out a good prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed. The interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant in terms of order dated 19.09.2022 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed
0 Comments