ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-160 of 2021.
_______________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
_______________________________________________________________________
01. For orders on office objection “A”
02. For hearing of bail application.
18.10.2021
Mr. Muhammad Ali Pirzado, Advocate for the applicant.
Makhdoom Syed Tahir Abbas Shah, Advocate for complainant.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.
= * = * = * = * = * =
IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged by complainant Mst.Farah Naz that the applicant subjected her to rape from time to time, after keeping her and her witnesses under fear of death and in end, robbed her of her belongings, after maltreatment to her and her witnesses, for that the present case was registered.
The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 498-A Cr.PC.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with considerable delay; the very case on investigation was cancelled by the police under “B” class; therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail, as he is apprehending his unjustified arrest. In support of his contention, he has relied upon case of Meeran Bux Vs. The State and another (PLD 1989 SC-347).
Learned Additional Prosecutor General 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 committed the offence which is affecting the society at large.
I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about three months and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The DNA profile of the applicant did not match with vaginal swab sample and clothes of the complainant. The very case on proper investigation was recommended by the police to be cancelled under “B” class. The applicant even otherwise has not misused the concession of pre-arrest bail after cognizance of the case by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. In these circumstances, it would be unjustified to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail to the applicant, particularly when he is claiming to have been involved in this case falsely.
In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.
The instant bail application is disposed off accordingly.
J U D G E