JUMO KHAN alias MUHAMMAD JUMAN Versus State
ORDER
ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.--- Having been rejected their earlier Bail Application bearing No. 141 of 2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Tharparkar alias Mithi, the applicants/ accused named above, through instant Criminal Bail Application seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 07 of 2020, registered at Police Station Kheensar under sections 147, 148, 149, 114, 504, 506, 337-A(i) and (ii), 337-F(i) and (vi) and 337-L(2), P.P.C. Applicants were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by this Court, vide Order dated 16.06.2020.
2. Precisely, the facts of the prosecution case are that, on 18.05.2020, complainant Manzoor Ali lodged the aforesaid FIR, stating therein that he and Muhammad Juman were at dispute for last 2/3 years on community affairs; that on 25.03.2020, at about 10:00 p.m. he was present at Tar Ahmed bus stop along with his brothers, namely, Ahsan Ali and Qurban Ali where applicants came there, armed with sticks and hatchet, and on the instigation of Juman, Abbas caused hatchet blow to Ahsan Ali on his head and Juman caused stick blow on his leg on that he fell down crying and then other accused caused sticks, kicks and fists blows to him and then they went away issuing threats and using abusive language; that injured Ahsan Ali was brought at police post Tar Ahmed of Police Station Kheensar and obtained a letter for RHC, Kheensar for treatment, whence he referred to Civil Hospital, Hyderabad and on receiving final MLC of injured Ahsan Ali, the complainant lodged the FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has mainly contended that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity; that the complainant concocted a false story to implicate the applicants malafidely for ulterior motives; that FIR is delayed by one month and 23 days for that no explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that all the injuries are self-suffered and medico-legal certificate is managed one; that one Mst. Marvi moved a direct complainant bearing No. 7 of 2020, under sections 147, 148, 452, 365-B, 511, 354-A, 506(ii) and 34, P.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chachro against the injured Ahsan Ali, who attempting to kidnap her daughter Mst. Bhao, which is still pending adjudication, and the injured sustained injuries during said attempt on falling down; that none of the offence for which the applicants have been charged with falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed his reliance on the case of Abdul Ghani Lashari v. The State (2020 PCr.LJ Note 70).
4. On the Other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and A.P.G. has vehemently opposed this application on the grounds that the applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing multiple injuries to injured Ahsan Ali; that the delay in lodging of FIR has been explained by the complainant in the FIR; that there exists sufficient evidence to connect the applicants with the alleged offence; that the compliant has no ill-will to implicate the applicants falsely; that the alleged direct complaint has been filed by one. Mst. Marvi on 01.06.2020, after 13 days of the lodging of FIR, to create a counter version.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their assistance.
6. It appears that the alleged incident took place on 25.03.2020 at 10:00 p.m. and the complainant appeared in police post Tar Ahmed and obtained a letter from the Inchage of said police post, addressed to medical officer for the treatment of his injured brother Ahsan Ali. Medical Officer, R.H.C. Kheensar, District Tharparkar @ Mithi examined the said injured on next day at 07:00 p.m. and found as many as 20 bodily injuries. He referred the injured to Liaquat University Hospital, Hyderabad and reserved his opinion till receiving of ward record and radiological expert opinion received from L.U.H., Hyderabad. Later, on 18.05.2020, he issued final MLC describing injury Nos. 1 and 2 as Shajjah-i-khafifa 337-A (i), injury No.3 as Shajjah-i-mudihah- 337-A(ii), P.P.C.; injury Nos. 4 to 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 20 as other hurt 337-L(2), P.P.C; injury No.12 as Ghayar Jaifah Munaqillah 337-F(vi), P.P.C; injury Nos. 9, 11, 15 and 19 as Ghayar Jaifah Damiyah-337-F(i), P.P.C. The complainant lodged the FIR after receiving final MLC, which fact he has explained in the FIR.
7. As per Provisional MLC, hard and blunt substance was used for causing alleged injuries to injured Ahsan Ali and as per X-Ray report of right tibia and fibula, there was a fracture of the shaft of right fibula. Hence, there is no room for consideration that the alleged injuries were self-suffered or caused to the injured on being fallen on ground, as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.
8. No doubt, the injuries described, as Shajjah-i-mudihah and Ghayar Jaifah Munaqillah are punishable for imprisonment for five and seven years, respectively, under sections 337-A(ii) and 337-F(vi), P.P.C., and hence, the same do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., but the same are non-bailable under the Schedule of Offences and, therefore, applicants cannot claim bail as a matter of right. Twenty injuries on the body of the injured including fracture/dislocation of the shaft of right leg lead to inference that the injured was thrashed mercilessly. Prima facie, sufficient material is available with the prosecution to connect the applicants with commission of alleged offence, who are nominated in the FIR with explicit role.
9. The learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to point out any special feature of the case entitling the applicants to grant of extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. It is now settled principal of law that in order to justify the grant of anticipatory bail, the accused is required to show that he apprehends his arrest on account of ulterior motives. One of the main considerations for grant of bail is whether the prosecution is motivated by malice so as to cause irreparable injury to citizen's reputation and liberty. The accused approaching the Court of law for grant of anticipatory bail is required to show that he is falsely implicated for extraneous consideration and ulterior motives are behind his apprehended arrest. The accused person becomes entitled for this concession on fulfillment of these conditions. Learned counsel for the applicants/ accused has remained. unable to persuade me to hold that accused had no concern with the alleged offence. Hence, in the instant case the pre-requisites for such concession i.e. malice and ulterior motives either on the part of the complainant or the police are conspicuously missing. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant proceeds on different facts and does not advance their case for the grant of pre-arrest bail.
10. Resultantly, there being no merit in this criminal bail application, the same is dismissed and the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants/accused vide order dated 16.06.2020 is hereby recalled.
11. Above are the reasons of my short order dated 24.07.2020, whereby instant criminal bail application was rejected.
JK/J-4/Sindh Bail recalled.