HAMZA ALI alias HAMZO and 3 others vs THE STATE

ORDER

' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---By this Criminal Bail application the applicants seek bail before arrest in Crime No,45 of 2008, registered at Police Station Khipro, on the complaint of complainant Samartho Bheel for alleged commission of offence punishable under sections 324, 147, 148, 149, 337-A(i) and 337-F(i), P.P.C.

2. Epigrammatically, on 27-7-2008 when complainant Samartho Bheel while chit chatting with Noor Ali reached at Masooman-Jo-Maqam, at 8-00 a.m. He saw that present applicants/accused duly armed with hatchets along with other unknown persons who were having lathis in their respective hand, were inflicting blows with their respective hatchet and lathi on his nephew Sambhoo, who received injuries on different parts of his body. Thereafter the accused ran away and the injured was referred to hospital. Such F.I.R. Was lodged.

3. The applicants have filed pre-arrest bail application, which was dismissed by learned Sessions.

Judge Sanghar vide order dated 6-10-2008, on the consideration that the accused have been nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing injuries to the injured who got 16 injuries with blunt weapon and the case falls within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. And the accused are vicariously liable for commission of offence under section 324 P . P. C .

4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the enmity between the parties is admitted and the F.I.R. Was lodged on the behest of A.S-I. Abheraj Singh Thakkur, who is posted at the same police station where the F.I.R. Was lodged. He then submits that no specific role has been assigned to each accused persons and the allegations are general in nature. He then submits that the medical evidence is not supporting the ocular evidence and the false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out, as the F.I.R. Was lodged after unexplained delay of nine hours after consultation. He then submits that applicants are respectable persons and police wants to arrest the applicants to cause harassm ent and humiliate them and to disgrace them to cause irreparable loss. The learned counsel has relied upon the reported cases of Bahadur Khan Niazi v.

Alam Khan and 2 others (PLD 2000 Karachi 74) and Rehmatullah and another v. The State (PLD 2008 Karachi 170).

5. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail plea and submits that the names of the applicants are appearing in a promptly lodged F.I.R. With specific role. He then submits that the injured got 16 injuries supported by medical evidence and that Special Medical Board was constituted who has certified the injuries. He then submits that the A.S-I. Abheraj Singh Thakkur is no more in police service and allegations against him is false, as at the same police station F.I.R. No, 46 of 2008 was registered against him. He submits that the applicants failed to establish any mala fide against the police, and mere allegations of the applicants are not sufficient to grant pre-arrest bail in a case falling under the prohibitory clause.

6. Mr. Anwar H. Ansari, the learned State Counsel has supported the order of trial Court and submits that pre-arrest bail was refused for sufficient cause. He submits that injured got 16 injuries which is evident from the medical report, out of which injuries Nos.1 to 3 are non-bailable.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, made available before me.

8. The injured got 16 injuries out of which injuries No,1 to 3 were caused from sharp cutting weapon and injuries Nos.4 to 16 were caused by hard and blunt A substance. The injuries have been confirmed by the medical report, as well as by the Special Medical Board. The injuries on the person of the applicants are sufficient to connect the applicants with the commission of offence.

Bail before arrest can be granted in extraordinary circumstances where prima facie mala fides are apparent on the part of prosecution or A accused have been falsely involved in the case. Mere allegations of the applicants in this regard are not sufficient to grant pre-arrest bail in a case falling under prohibitory clause. As far as allegation that the F.I.R. Was lodged on the instigation of A.S-I. Abheraj Singh Thakkur is concerned, it is suffice to say that at the same police station where he was allegedly posted, a F.I.R. No, 46 of 2008 was registered against him and if he is so influencial then said F.I.R. Would not be registered against him. Moreover, the learned counsel for the complainant has made a statement at bar that he is no more in police service.

9. In view of above, I do not find any merits in this application and the same was B dismissed by short order dated 23-1-2009, and the above are reasons for the same.