ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-188 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

20.10.2021

                        Mr. Ali Bux Mashori, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicants with one more culprit in furtherance of their common intention caused lathi blows to complainant Ali Nawaz, for that the present case was registered.

                        The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, have 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 applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant only to settle his dispute with them over the plot; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about 15 days and the offence alleged against the applicants is not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC; therefore, the applicants are entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail, as they are apprehending their unjustified arrest.

                        Learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that they are vicariously liable for the commission of the incident.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 15 days and such delay could not be overlooked. No injury to the complainant has been attributed to any of the applicants specifically. The case has finally been challaned and the applicants have joined the trial. In these circumstances, it would be unjustified to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail to the applicants particularly when they are claiming to have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant in order to satisfy his dispute with them over the plot.

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

                        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E