ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT , J.---Through instant criminal bail application, applicant/accused Awais Shah son of Muhammad Zaffar seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No, 26 of 2018, registered at P. S. A-Section Latifabad, under Sections 324, 452, 337-(A)(i), 337-F(i), P.P.C. His first application for grant of pre-arrest bail bearing No, 299 of 2018 was heard and dismissed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide order dated 28.02.2018, while second bail application bearing No, S-222 of 2018 was dismissed by this Court for non- prosecution, vide order dated 05.10.2018. Thereafter , the accused again approached this Court for grant of pre- arrest bail through instant application; he was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail, vide order dated 10.10.2018, now he seeks confirmation of the same.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.02.2018, at 2200 hours, complainant Suhail Ahmed lodged the aforesaid FIR alleging therein that on 07.02.2018, at 0200 hours, applicant/accused inflected knife blows on the neck of her wife Nazia with intention to kill her, in upper room of his house, who on her cries run away from rooftop of the house seeing coming up his brother Shoaib and sister Ayesha.
3. The learned counsel for the accused has mainly contended that the accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with malice and ulterior motive on account of enmity; that in fact there was a family quarrel between the wife of complainant and his sister wherein his wife sustained knife injuries and the complainant took the advantage of said quarrel and lodged a false FIR against the accused to teach him a lesson, otherwise, no such incident as alleged in the FIR has taken place; that there is an inordinate delay of nine days in lodging of FIR for that no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident despite the fact that the place of occurrence is situated in a thickly populated area, hence, false implication of accused in this case cannot be ruled out; that the nature of injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant's wife are not mentioned in the FIR. that the Section 324, P.P.C. does not attract to the present case; that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and since it is a fit case of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., the interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused may be confirmed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this application. He has maintained that the accused is son of the paternal niece of the complainant, who resides in front of complainant's house; that the accused committed house-trespassed by entering into house of complainant having made preparation for causing murder of compla inant's wife and attempted to commit her qatl-i-amd; that it was the timely arrival of the brother and sister of the complainant on the cries of his wife that saved her life otherwise the accused could have succeeded in his intention to kill her; therefore, he is not entitled to the extra ordinary relief of bail before arrest.
5. The learned APG while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed this application.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused, complainant and learned APG as well as perused the material available on record.
7. It appears from the perusal of the record that the accused has been nominated in the FIR by name for causing knife injures to wife of the complainant in attempt to cutting her neck. It further appears that after alleged incident, the brother and sister of the complainant immediately took the injured to concerned police station and after obtaining a letter for treatment, they took the injured to civil hospital for treatment and it was thereafter , the complainant lodged the FIR. Even otherwise, delay in lodging FIR ispo facto is no ground for grant of bail. The alleged incident took place at 0200 hours in the house of the complainant where the accused entered duly armed with knife, he was identified by the brothe r and sister of the complainant, besides, the injured has also implicated him in her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein she has further deposed that she resisted his attempt which resulted in sustaining injuries over her arm and other parts of body. There were total four injuries caused by the accused on the person of the complainant's wife, which were declared by the MLO in his Medico- Lego Report as Shajjah-i-khafifah and Ghayr-jaifah damiyah, punishable under Sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(i), P.P.C., respectively , but the Special Medical Board, constituted by the Directorate General Health Services Sindh, Hyderabad on the application of the complainant, declared two injuries, out of four, as Itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw , as the same has caused permanent disfigurement of the vital part of the body of complainant's wife i,e, her neck, as defined under section 335, P.P.C, carrying punishment of arsh and imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, in addition, offence under section 324, P.P.C. is prima facie attracted to the present case; hence, the alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. As such, prima facie sufficient material is available with the prosecution to connect the accused with the commission of alleged offence.
The grounds of malice and ulterior motive are hardly available to accused.
8. So far the defence version, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, is concerned, suffice to say that the Court under sub-section (2) of the Section 497. Cr. P.C. is not to make probe into defence version in order to advance a plea of bail, rather it has to assess tentatively the material produced before it and to see if reasonable ground exists to believe, prima facie involvement of accused in the commission of offence and if the accused found connected with the commission of offence , he will not be released on bail on the basis of further inquiry . Reliance in this regard may be placed in the case of Khalida Bibi v. Nadeem Bain (PLD 2009 SC 440). Hence, this bail application is dismissed. Interim order , dated 10.10.2018, stands recalled.