AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J. The applicants booked in FIR No. 765/2021 under sections 147/148/149/324/365/395/337-A(i), P.P.C. registered with Police Station Jamshed Quarters, Karachi, were admitted to pre-arrest bail vide order dated 20.01.2022 in Crl. Bail Application No. 99 of 2022 and 28.01.2022 in Crl. Bail Application No. 182 of 2022 and today both the matters are fixed for confirmation of said pre-arrest bail or otherwise.
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. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that FIR has been lodged with the delay of twenty days which has not been explained and no specific role of each of the applicants has been assigned in the HR. They further submitted that as per FIR the incident was took place in muhallah but no independent witness of the locality has been cited by the complainant. Lastly learned counsel prayed that the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants may be confirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is sufficient material which connects the applicants with the crime so also there is CCTV footage is also available with the prosecution hence opposed the confirmation. Learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh while adopting the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant added that there is no denial that incident has been taken place as the injuries have been declared as Khafifa and Dhamiah. She argued that though both the injuries are bailable but she opposed the confirmation of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is an admitted fact that the FIR has been lodged with the unexplained delay of twenty days and no iota of evidence is available against the applicants. The record shows that applicants and complainant are residing in the same locality and in FIR the complainant had named one person Shahbaz who latter on was let off by the investigation officer as during investigation some muhallah people stated that Shahbaz was not present at the time of incident which fact was also confirmed by the complainant. If the above named person Shahbaz was present, as to why the complainant later on stated that he was not present which creates doubt in the prosecution story and requires further inquiry. The guilt or innocence of the applicants is yet to be established as it would depend on the strength and quality of the evidence that will be produced by the prosecution and the defense before the trial Court. This is a pre-arrest bail application. 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.
6. There is no denial to this fact that the superior courts of the country since long have issued guidelines wherein the details of the considerations for the grant of bail and cancellation whereof are highlighted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while handing down a judgment reported as Shahid Arshad v. Muhammad Naqi Butt (1976 SCMR 360) although found that the bail granting order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law but yet restrained to interfere in such order on the ground that there was nothing to show that the accused had misused the concession of bail. In a recent judgment reported as Samiullah v. Laiq Zada (2020 SCMR 1115), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enunciated the following principles for cancellation/recalling of bail:-- i) If the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. ii) That the accused has misused the concession of bail in any manner, iii) That accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by persuading/pressurizing prosecution witnesses. iv) That there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused beyond the jurisdiction of court. v) That the accused has attempted to interfere with the smooth course of investigation. vi) That accused misused his liberty while indulging into similar offence. vii) That some fresh facts and material has been collected during the course of investigation with tends to establish guilt of the accused.
7. When confronted, the learned counsel for the complainant so also learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh to show from the record as to whether the applicant had violated any of c the above-said conditions on the basis of which their bail can be cancelled, she had no answer.
8. 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 reported in 2004 YLR 2230.
9. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicants vide orders dated 20.01.2022 in Cr1. Bail Application No. 99 of 2022 and 28.01.2022 in Crl. Bail Application No. 182 of 2022 are confirmed on same terms and conditions. The trial court is directed to decide the matter as early as possible after hearing both the parties and such compliance report be submitted before this court. The instant Criminal Bail Applications stand disposed of.