ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-507 of 2020.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

26.11.2021

                        Mr. Imtiaz Ali Mugheri, Advocate for the applicant.

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

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Saddam Hussain by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2.         The applicant, on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Shikarpur, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application under section 498 Cr.PC.

3.         It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its previous grudge with him; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about two days; co-accused Allah Ditto has already been admitted to bail by this Court and no active role in commission of the incident is attributed to the applicant. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant.

4.         Learned Addl.P.G for the State has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant.

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

6.         The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about two days. No active role in commission of the incident is attributed to the applicant. The parties are already disputed and co-accused Allah Ditto with utmost similar role has already been admitted to bail by this Court; therefore, no useful purpose would be served, if the applicant is taken into custody and then is admitted to bail on point of consistency.

7.         In case of Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafarullah and another                                (1986 SCMR-1380), it was held by the Honourable 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”.

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

9.                     The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.

  J U D G E