ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S – 590 of 2018

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of bail application

01.04.2019

Mr. J K Jarwar Advocate a/w applicant

Mr. Bashir Ahmed Shar Advocate for the complainant

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional PG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J; It is alleged that the present applicant with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object not only committed Qatl-e-amd of Muhammad Umar by causing him dagger and fire shot injuries but caused fire shot and dagger injuries to PWs Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Zakria with intention to commit their murder and then went away by making aerial firing, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 498-A Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy their enmity with him, there is delay of one day in lodgment of FIR and there is no independent witness to the incident. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of malafide.

4. Learned Additional PG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in the commission of incident while making fires at deceased Muhammad Umar and PW Muhammad Ismail.

5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6. The name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that he being armed with deadly weapon not only fired at deceased Muhammad Umar but caused fire shot injuries to P.W Muhammad Ismail with intention to commit his murder. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. The enmity between the parties may be there, but it may not be reason for false involvement of the applicant in this case. It is true that there is delay of one day in lodgment of FIR, but there could be made no denial to the fact that it is explained in the FIR itself. The delay in lodgment of FIR even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. There may not be any independent witness to the incident but there could be made no denial to the fact that the complainant and his witnesses are natural witness to the incident. No malafide is apparent of record, which may justify admitting the applicant to pre‑arrest bail. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence for which he is charged. Consequently, the instant Criminal Bail Application for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant is dismissed.

7. The order whereby the applicant was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail is recalled and vacated.

Judge

ARBROHI