AFTAB Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. Applicant Aftab is charged under sections 336, 337‑A(iii)/137‑A(i), 504 P.P.C. in F.I.R. No.188 of 2002, registered at Police Station Azizabad, Karachi Central.

2. The applicant/accused filed his pre‑arrest bail which was heard by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central and dismissed the same on 15‑2‑2003 The applicant/accused was preferred similar application before this Court of grant of pre‑arrest bail.

3. On 28‑2‑2003, the bail application was heard and without touching the merits and demerits of the case, interim pre‑arrest bail was granted to the applicant/accused. Again on 6‑3‑2003 Mr. Fazlani filed power of attorney on behalf of the complainant and the learned counsel for applicant requested for time, which was opposed by Mr. Fazlani that the applicant/accused will abscond away. However, the matter was adjourned at the request of the counsel for applicant. Then on 7‑3‑2003, Miss. Afridi stated that the applicant/accused is trying to compound the matter with the complainant party and at the joint request the matter was adjourned.

4. Today, the learned counsel for the applicant has filed photostat copy of application filed by applicant Aftab addressed to Shabbir Shahabuddin, General Councilor of U.C.11, the said application was received on 10‑3‑2003. The learned counsel for applicant has also filed a letter of the said Shabbir Shahabuddin that there is possibility of compounding the matter, and the matter may be adjourned. Learned counsel for complainant has opposed the request made by the learned counsel for applicant and submits that no date was fixed by the Councillor for compounding the matter and the accused is deliberately delaying the matter as the complainant party is not willing to compound the dispute.

5. In view of the objection raised by Mr. Fazlani, this bail application has been heard on merits Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the case of Muhammad Shafi v. The State 1999 SD 577, Muhammad Yar alias Kali and another v. The State 2001 YLR 581, Abdul Jabbar and others v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1956. At the out set learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon Murad Khan v. Fazle Subhan PLD 1983 SC 82 and submits that; the conditions for grant of pre- arrest bail was not available as there is no ulterior motive or humiliation or unjustified harassment on the part of prosecution to involve the applicant/accused to cause irreparable injury or reputation and liability or on political consideration. It is further urged by the learned counsel that there is another view in case of Hidayatullah Khan, Khushi Muhammad and Sadiq Ali and the three principles laid down therein have been strictly followed by the apex Court. It is further urged by the learned counsel that on the basis of medical evidence, which is supported by the Medical Board the applicant/accused has caused the injuries to the complainant and the punishment provided for such injury also falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

6. Mr. Mohsin Imam, learned counsel for the State, has pointed out that on the basis of complaint made by the applicant/accused Medical Board was constituted and injury was examined by the Board under the Chairmanship of Prof. Illahi Bux Soomro and thereafter evidence on record to show that the applicant/accused is being involved falsely to this case.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for respective parties and examined the material placed on record.

8. The charge‑sheet, has already been filed during the pendency of bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi Central. According to the F.I.R., the name of applicant/accused has been, nominated with a specific role and there, is corroboration of medical evidence to support the version of complainant. There is no material on record to show that the applicant/accused during the commission of offence has caused the injuries to the complainant. In the case of Murad Khan v. Fazle Subhan (supra), it has been held that the applicant has to satisfy the condition for grant of pre‑arrest bail, but in this case not a single instance has been placed on record nor it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has been involved falsely. The points raised by the learned counsel in support of the merit of the case, that can only be examined by the' trial Court if the applicant/accused surrenders himself before such Court.

9. In view of the foregoing reasons, the applicant/accused has failed to make out a case of confirmation of bail. Therefore, the interim bail granted by this Court is recalled and applicant/accused is directed to surrender himself before the trial Court or before the proper authorities without loss of further time. Resultantly, this Criminal Bail Application No.224 of 2003 is dismissed.

10. H.B.T./A‑14/K Bail application dismissed.