Jinsar Ali Chandio Versus State

order

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J .--- Through this application, applicant Jinsar Ali son of Mahboob Ali, by caste Chandio, seeks his admission on pre-arrest bail in Crime No.11 of 2024, registered at P.S Seehar, District Larkana for offences under Sections 324, 337-H(2), 506/2, 147, 148, 149 and 337-D, P.P.C Applicant filed anticipatory bail application vide Cr. Bail Appln. No. 1989 of 2024 before the Court of Sessions, which was assigned to learned VI-Additiona Sessions Judge, Larkana, who after hearing the parties, turned down his request vide order dated 26.09.2024, hence this application has bee maintained.

2. The facts of the prosecution case are mentioned in the memo of ba application; therefore, the same need not to be reproduced herein again.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR is delayed f about 06 days without plausible explanation. He next submits that though th applicant is shown armed with pistol; however, has not caused any injury to t complainant party and the allegation against him is of mere accosting which yet to be established by the prosecution after recording evidence; hence submits that case against the applicant requires further enquiry and prays that by granting application in hand, the applicant may be granted pre-arrest bail.

4. Learned Addl. P.G. submits that active role of causing firearm injuries to injured Hamid and Sarfraz is assigned to co-accused Mahboob and Shahbaz, whereas the role of applicant is nothing but of 'lalkara', therefore, case of applicant requires further enquiry and he has no objection if the bail application is allowed.

5. Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of complainant under the cover of statement of today's date have filed photographs of the injured PWs, taken on record; they oppose the bail application, on the ground that the applicant is nominated in the FIR; besides, he was accompanying co-accused Mahboob and Shahbaz, who caused grievous injuries to PWs Hamid and Sarfraz, therefore, the applicant having shared common intention is not entitled for bail.

6. Heard. Record perused.

7. No doubt, the applicant is nominated in the FIR duly armed with pistal: however, it is also an undeniable fact that he did not cause any injury to the complainant party. Per FIR, the applicant had allegedly accosted the complainant party, which is yet to be established at trial after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is also evident from the FIR that alleged incident occurred on 23.05.2024, whereas the report thereof was lodged on 29.05.2024 i.e. with the delay of about 06 days and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay. The delay in criminal cases has always been deprecated by the superior Courts and held fatal for the prosecution. The injuries allegedly sustained by PWs Hamid and Sarfraz are attributed to co-accused Mahboob and Shahbaz, of whom, Mahboob is said to be behind bars while Shahbaz is absconding It is settled law that every accused has to face the charge as per evidence and the applicant is alleged to have raised only 'lalkara' to the complainant party, which is still to be proved by the prosecution at trial after recording evidence and then the trial Court has to determine the accusation against him. As admitted by the complainant, the parties are already on strained relations on account of dispute over the plot; hence, malafide on the part of prosecution cannot be ruled out. The case has been challaned and no complaint is brought on record against the applicant regarding misuse of concession of interim pre-arrest bail extended to him. In the circumstances and in view of the dicta laid down by learned Apex Court in the case of Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 730), the case against the applicant requires further enquiry as envisaged under sub-section (2) to Section 497, Cr.P.C.

8. Consequently, instant bail application is hereby allowed. Resultantly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant on 03.10.2024 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

9. The observations recorded above are based on tentative assessment of the material placed on record, which shall not influence the trial Court, in any manner, during the trial.

SA/J-2/Sindh Bail confirmed.