Sajjad Jatoi and Others vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, Sajjad Jatoi and others, who were charged with forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to prosecution witnesses with the intent to commit murder. The applicants, having been denied bail by the trial court, sought relief from the High Court under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to them and the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, noting that the injuries attributed to them were bailable in nature, the FIR was lodged with a delay, and there was a pre-existing dispute over landed property between the parties. Furthermore, the Court observed that the case had been challaned and there was no apprehension of evidence tampering. The Court established the principle that where injuries attributed to the accused are bailable and the prosecution case requires further inquiry, particularly in the context of pre-existing civil disputes, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the injuries attributed to them are bailable in nature?
- Does a pre-existing land dispute between the parties constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be granted when the FIR is lodged with a significant delay and there is no apprehension of tampering with evidence?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicants with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, caused fire shot, hatchet and lathi blows to PWs Zahid Hussain, Aijaz and Ghulam Asghar , with intention to commit their murder and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment and insulting complainant Ghulam Shabir , for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicants on having been refused post arrest bail by learned3rd Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 497 Cr .PC.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its dispute with them over the landed property; the blows sustained by the injured, which are attributed to the applicants in commission of the incident are bailable and the applicants are in custody for more than four months without effective progress in trial of their case, therefore, they are entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry .
4. Learned D.P.G. for the State and learn ed counsel for the complainant have opposed to release of the applicants on bail by contending that they have actively participated in commission of the incident by causing hatchet/lathi blows to the injured.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about four hours. The blows sustained by the injured which have been attributed to the applicants obviously are bailable in its nature. Whether bailable injuries were caused by the applicants to the injured with intention to commit their murder? It requires determination at trial. The parties are already disputed over the landed property . The case has finally been challaned. There is no apprehension of tampering with the evide nce on part of the applicants. In these circumstances, a case for release of the applicants on bail on point of further enquiry obviously is made out.
7. In view of above, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to their furnis hing solvent surety in the sum Rs.50,000/- each and P .R bonds in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly .