AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J. The applicants were admitted to pre-arrest bail vide order dated 31.05.2021 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 further submitted that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to personal grudge. He further contended that the complainant and the applicants are brothers and the instant FIR is outcome of grudge due to dispute arose between them on, running a madrassah and its properties. He next contended that all these aspects of the matter make the whole story doubtful which requires further enquiry. He prayed that the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 31.05.2021 may be confirmed.
3. Learned APG Sindh submitted that though there might be dispute amongst the applicants and complainant being brothers, however apparently the applicants had taken law in their own hands and rushed to the house of the complainant with lathis etc. and caused him injuries for which medical certificate is also available. However he opposed the confirmation of bail on the ground that the offence under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. is attracted towards the applicants.
4. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the applicants with a mob came to the house of the complainant duly armed with not only lathis, bailchas rather they were armed with fire arm/weapons, which shows their motive. The applicants have beaten the complainant and admittedly the complainant has received several injuries. In support of his contention he also produced printouts of CCTV photoages to show that the applicants party rushed to the house of complainant with lathis etc. He further submitted that since the applicants were aggressive and came with a motive to beat the complainant therefore, they are not entitled for concession of bail and as such, opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh duly assisted by the learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that there is/was civil dispute between the parties over some madrassah or its funds. Admittedly there was a clash between the applicant and the complainant party in which persons from both the sides were injured. The applicant party also lodged an FIR No.495/2021 at the same Police station against the complainant as a counter blast and also produced photgraphs showing that the applicant got injuries on his head and lips. Though photographs were placed on record by the complainant as well to show that the applicants were duly armed not only with lathis but also fire arms when rushed to the house of the complainant, however the record does not reveal a single shot fired at the place of incident. Had there been some motive, they could have fired on the complainant also. More over, the applicants and complainant are brothers of each other and in that scenario, dispute on money cannot be ruled out while they were jointly running a madrassah as claimed. As far as the injuries caused to the complainant is concerned, the photographs show a mob of people rushing towards the house of the complainant, however it does not show that who had caused injury to the complainant. Prima facie. case against applicants appears to be doubtful, benefit of which shall go to the applicants. 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 granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction should not be snatched away from accused unless it becomes necessary. 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 compliant of misuse of concession of bail or tempering 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 applicants. 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 they are not guilty of such offence, then the Court must release them 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.
9. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, 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 bail granted to applicants vide order dated 31.05.2021 is confirmed on same terms and conditions. The instant Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of with directions to the trial to conclude the trial within three months from the date receipt of this order.