گرفتاری سے قبل ضمانت، منظوری--واقعہ کے روز، ملزمان مدعی کے بریانی کی دکان پر آئے اور اس پر فائرنگ کی لیکن اسے کوئی گولی نہیں لگی اور نہ ہی کوئی معمولی خراش آئی جس سے اس بات پر..................

 PLJ 2025 Cr.C. (Note) 202
[Sindh High Court, Karachi]
PresentAmjad Ali Sahito, J.
AZIZ-UR-REHMAN and others--Applicants
versus
STATE--Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 2809 of 2024, decided on 25.2.2025.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

گرفتاری سے قبل ضمانت، منظوری--واقعہ کے روز، ملزمان مدعی کے بریانی کی دکان پر آئے اور اس پر فائرنگ کی لیکن اسے کوئی گولی نہیں لگی اور نہ ہی کوئی معمولی خراش آئی جس سے اس بات پر یقین کیا جا سکے؛ لہذا، دفعہ 324، تعزیرات پاکستان اس مرحلے پر اس معاملے میں قابل اطلاق نہیں ہے، جبکہ، دفعہ 34، تعزیرات پاکستان قابل ضمانت ہے-- گاڑی پر گولی کا کوئی نشان نہیں ملا جو اس بات کی بھی تصدیق کرتا ہے کہ گاڑی کو کوئی گولی نہیں لگی جیسا کہ ایف آئی آر میں بیان کیا گیا ہے-- مزید یہ کہ درخواست گزاروں کے وکیل نے مدعی کی جانب سے بدنیتی کی استدعا کی ہے کہ پارکنگ کے تنازعہ کی وجہ سے مدعی نے جھوٹی کہانی بنائی اور فوری طور پر ایف آئی آر درج کرائی-- ضمانت کے مرحلے پر، صرف ابتدائی جائزہ لیا جانا ہے اور گہری تشخیص کی اجازت نہیں ہے۔

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324 & 34--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--On day of incident, accused persons came to Biryani shop of complainant and fired upon him but he has not received any bullet injury or simple scratch to believe same; hence, Section 324, PPC is not applicable in this case at this stage, whereas, Section 34, PPC is bailable--No mark of bullet was found on vehicle which also confirms that no bullet was hit to car as stated in FIR--Further, counsel for applicants has pleaded malafide on part of complainant that due to dispute over parking, complainant made a false story and lodged instant FIR--At bail stage, only tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation is not permissible.                            [Para 6] A

M/s. Salahuddin Khan GandapurSafir-ud-Din Khan Gandapur and Sana KheshgiAdvocates for Applicants.

Ms. Rahat Ahsan, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for State.

Mr. Tahir-ur-RehmanAdvocate for Complainant.

Dates of hearing: 25.2.2025.

Order

Through this Bail Application, applicants/accused seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 227/2024 for the offence under Sections 324, 34, PPC registered at PS Mithadar, after their bail plea has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Karachi South vide orders dated 29.11.2024.

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

3.       Per learned counsel for the applicants, applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case; that not a single person has received any scratch on the body to believe that the applicants have fired upon the complainant party, that memo. of recovery of the empty recovered from the place of incident was made on 21.11.2024 after about 24 hours; that no bullet mark was found on the car, that case has been challaned and the applicants are no more required for further investigation. Lastly, he prays for confirmation of bail to the applicants.

4.       On the other hand, learned Addl. P.G. and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed for grant of bail and stated that accused persons have fired upon the complainant party; however, he admits that complainant party has not received in bullet injury.

5.       Heard the parties and perused the material available on record.

6.       From perusal of record, it reflects that on the day of incident, accused persons came to Biryani shop of the complainant and fired upon him but he has not received any bullet injury or simple scratch to believe the same; hence, Section 324, PPC is not applicable in this case at this stage, whereas, Section 34, PPC is bailable. No mark of bullet was found on the vehicle which also confirms that no bullet was hit to the car as stated in the FIR. Further, learned counsel for the applicants has pleaded malafide on the part of complainant that due to dispute over parking, the complainant made a false story and lodged the instant FIR. At bail stage, only tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation is not permissible.

7.       In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicants has made out case for grant of bail in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Resultantly, Resultantly, the instant bail application is allowed. The interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants/accused vide order dated 02.12.2024 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. The Applicants are directed to attend the trial. However, It is made clear that if the applicants/accused misuse the concession of bail, learned trial Court would be at liberty to take appropriate action.

8.       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/accused on merits.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed

Click to switch to the original text.
Click to Translate Page.
Settings
PDF Translate

Post a Comment

0 Comments

close