ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-102 of 2020

Crl.B.A.No.S-162 of 2020

Crl.B.A.No.S-192 of 2020

DATE                    ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail applications.

23.04.2020.

M/S. Ali Azhar Tunio, Safdar Ali Ghouri, Irfan Ahmed Memon, Advocates for the applicants.

                        Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G for the State.

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

Irshad Ali Shah-J; It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicants with rest of the culprits in collusion with each other, prepared a false pension case for amongst them (Mst.Hawa Sarki), purported her to be Oriental Teacher at Jacobabad and then withdrawn such pensionary benefits, thereby caused considerable loss to the public Ex-checker and undue gain to them, for that the present case was registered.

2.       The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Larkana, have sought for the same from this Court by way of captioned applications u/s 498 Cr.PC.

3.       It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the police; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about one year; the case has been challaned finally; section 409 PPC is not applicable to the case of applicants, co-accused Muhammad Ali and three others have already been admitted to bail by this Court and no useful purpose would be served, if the applicants are taken in custody and then are admitted to bail on point of consistency.

4.       Learned D.P.G. for the State has opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have caused considerable loss to public money by forging a fake pension case. 

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

6.       The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one year; such delay could not be overlooked; the case is mainly based on documentary evidence, which has already been collected by the police; the case has finally been challaned and co-accused Muhammad Ali and three others have already been admitted to bail by this Court. In that situation, it is rightly being contended that no useful purpose would be served if the applicants are taken in custody and then are admitted to bail on point of consistency.  

7.                In case of Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafarullah and another (1986 SCMR-1380), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that;

“no useful purpose was likely to be served if bail of accused (respondent) was cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he could again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused were already on bail‑‑Interference declined by Supreme Court”.

7.                 In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicants is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

8.                The captioned bail applications are disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E