HAKIMUDDIN SOOMRO Versus State
ORDER
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- The applicants were admitted to pre-arrest bail vide order dated 04.02.2020 and today the matter is fixed for confirmation of said pre-arrest bail.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants while reiterating the grounds mentioned in the memo of bail application submitted that after obtaining the pre-arrest bail, the applicants are regularly attending the trial court as well as this court and not misused the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the complainant is not the eye-witness and whole story is hearsay and this aspect of the matter alone makes the whole story doubtful. He argued that case of the applicants requires further enquiry. To support his contentions he has relied upon the cases of Azizullah Khan and others v. The State (SBLR 2020 Sindh 148). He prayed that the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants vide order dated 06.12.2019 may be confirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant by filing the certain documents under cover of his statement, has opposed the confirmation of bail on the ground that the applicants had committed the offence of abduction of nephew Semon and taking away the goats of complainant.
4. Learned DPG Sindh submitted that as per record there is no evidence against the present applicants of abduction and taking away the goats of complainant. However he opposed the confirmation of bail on the ground that the offence as alleged in the FIR is heinous offence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh and perused the record.
6. Perusal of the record reflects that the FIR has been lodged with the unexplained delay of 19 days; the FIR is based on hearsay and complainant is not the eye-witness of the incident. Perusal of record further reveals that there is/was a civil dispute between the parties over some plot; there is no motive against applicants/accused for commission of offence. Prima facie, case against applicants appears to be doubtful. Benefit of doubt shall go to the applicants even at bail stage. In the case reported as Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 241) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:--
"So whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail. In such a situation, it would be better to keep an accused person on bail then in the jail, during the trial. Freedom of an individual is a precious right. Personal liberty ranted by a Court of competent jurisdiction should not be snatched away from accused unless it becomes to deprive him of his liberty under the law. Where story of prosecution does not appear to be probable, bail may be granted so that further inquiry may be made into guilt of the accused".
7. No complaint of misuse of concession of bail or tampering the record has been pointed out. The applicants are regularly appearing in the case before this court as well as trial court. No specific role has been assigned to any of the accused, the complainant has not disclosed the words uttered by the accused. It is not out of context to mention here that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. At bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case are not permitted and only tentative assessment is to be made, however, where accused satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail. Wisdom is sought from the case titled Yar Muhammad v. The State and another reported in 2004 YLR 2230.
8. It may not be out of place to mention here that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive and therefore, deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it may be required to ensure the presence of accused during trial. The punishment begins after conviction and not before it, as in criminal justice system every man is deemed to be innocent until duly found guilty. It needs not to re-emphasize that the purpose of putting the un-convicted persons in custody is nothing but to secure their attendance at the trial. Even otherwise, life and liberty of a citizen is very precious and guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as has been observed by the Hon'able Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in PLD 1989 SC 585.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. I hold that reasonable doubt arises with regard to participation of present applicants in this case. Hence, case of the applicants prima facie calls for further inquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest hail granted to applicants vide order dated 04.02.2020 is confirmed on same terms and conditions. The instant Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of.
ADN/H-7/Sindh Bail confirmed.