ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-587 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

17.01.2022

                        Mr. Muhammad Ali Memon, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Kalhoro, A.P.G 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, committed murder of Sahib Dino and then went away by 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/MCTC, Shikarpur, 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 delay of about two days; the applicant on investigation was found to be innocent by the police and the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident even otherwise is only to the extent of instigation; therefore, he is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and malafide. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Qurban Ali Vs. The State (2017 SCMR-279).

                        Learned A.P.G for the State has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he is 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 two days; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The applicant on investigation was found to be innocent by the police; therefore, his name was placed in Column No.2 of the charge sheet. The role attributed to the applicant in commission even otherwise is only to the extent of instigation. Whether the applicant actually participated in commission of the incident? It requires determination at trial. In these circumstances, the applicant is found entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of 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