ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-435 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

25.10.2021

                        Mr. Ghulam Mohiuddin Durrani, Advocate for the applicants.

Complainant Zahid Hussain in person

Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits, in prosecution of their common object, after keeping complainant Zahid Hussain and PW Zamin Ali under fear of death, caused them knife, iron rod, kicks and fists blows, for that the present case was registered.

                        The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 3^rd Addition 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 on account of dispute over the landed property; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about eight days and the offence alleged against the applicants did not fall 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 at the hands of police.

                        Learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State who is assisted by the complainant has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that the case is fresh one.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about eight days and the same having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The offence alleged against the applicants is not falling within the prohibitory clause. The parties are disputed over the landed property. The case has finally been challaned. The applicants have joined the trial. The concession of pre-arrest bail has not been misused by the applicants. In these circumstances, it would be unjustified to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail to the applicants.

                        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