WALI MUHAMMAD alias HAJJAN Versus State
ORDER
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J .---By means of this bail application, applicants Wali Muhammad alias Hajjan, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Shahban alias Shahban Ali, Shafi Muhammad and Abdul Raheem all sons of Muhammad Punhal Meno and Muhammad Punhal alias Punhal son of Ali Gohar Meno, have sought pre-arrest bail in the case, emanating from FIR No.08 of 2020, registered at Police Station Mahi Makol, for offence under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i)(v), 114, 504, 148, 149, P.P.C. after their plea for pre-arrest bail has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kamber by dismissing their application vide impugned Order dated 27.02.2020.
2. The learned advocate for the applicants has mainly contended that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention due to their dispute over the landed property; that the FIR was delayed by more than one month without proper explanation thereof; that all the offences applied are bailable except offence under section 337-F(v), P.P.C., which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel, placing on record the certified copy of the proposed FIR, filed along with the application under provisions of sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, submits that the prosecution story and motive narrated in the proposed FIR is quite different than that of the subject FIR and that in the wake of divergent versions of the case, the case requires further enquiry into the guilt of the present applicants. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants may be confirmed.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General after going through the police papers and endorsing the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants has frankly conceded to the confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants.
4. A perusal of the record reveals that all the offences are bailable except offence under section 337-F(v), P.P.C, which carrying punishment upto five years, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; the incident is shown to have taken place on 14.01.2020 and final Medico-legal Certificate was issued on 25.01.2020, but the FIR was lodged on 15.02.2020 that is after one month of the incident and after 20 days of the issuance of Final Medico-legal Certificate without any explanation having offered by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay in lodgment of the FIR; and, in view of the previous enmity between the parties possibility of false implication of the present applicants, who being brothers and father are members of one family, cannot be ruled out. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the applicants have made out their case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants vide order dated 05.03.2020 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
4. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.
SA/W-10/Sindh Bail granted.