ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT AT LARKANA

Crl.Bail.Appln.No.S-523 of 2017

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on office objection “A”

2. For hearing of bail application

.-.-.-.-.

15.10.2018

Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate for the surety.
Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

                        Applicant Manzoor Ahmed was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2018; it was cancelled on account of absence of the applicant without intimation. Consequently, NBW against him and notice to his surety were issued. In the meanwhile, applicant applied for pre-arrest bail by way of filing a separate bail application before this Court. It was granted to him by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2018. Subsequently, the surety put his appearance and submitted his reply/comment/statement to the notice.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the surety that the absence of the applicant before this Court was not willful but beyond his control as he was not intimated about the date of hearing before this Court properly, otherwise, he was very much in attendance before learned trial Court and soon after dismissal of his bail application, he again surrendered before this Court and was admitted to pre-arrest bail. By contending so, he sought for recalling of the notice against the surety.

                        Learned A.P.G was not able to controvert the above said legal position.

                        Admittedly, after dismissal of first bail application, the applicant surrendered before this Court and was admitted to pre-arrest bail on filing of fresh bail application. As per photo stat copies of case diaries, which the surety has produced before this Court, the applicant has remained in attendance before learned trial Court regularly. In that situation, the contention of learned counsel for the surety that the absence of the applicant before this Court on the date of hearing of his bail application was not willful but beyond his control, could not be lost sight of.

                        In view of above, the notice issued against the surety is recalled and vacated.

JUDGE

.