ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-501 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

03.01.2022

                        Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jatoi, Advocate for the applicant.

                        Complainant Mst.Kalsoom in person.

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

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits,  after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by committing trespass into house of complainant Mst.Kalsoom, caused danda blows to her and PW Zubair Ahmed and then went away by insulting and threatening them of murder and making aerial firing to create harassment,      for that the present case was registered. 

                        The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned           1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, 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 party in order to satisfy its dispute with him over the landed property; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about nine days; injuries sustained by the complainant and PW Zubair Ahmed are bailable in nature and co-accused Ghulam Shabir and four others have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court; therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of consistency and further inquiry.

                        Learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State who is assisted by the complainant has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he is vicariously liable for commission of incident.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about nine days and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The offence alleged against the applicant even otherwise is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. Co-accused Ghulam Shabir and four others have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court; therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of consistency/further inquiry and malafide.

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

                        The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E