ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-528 of 2021.

_____________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

______________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

14.03.2022

                        Mr. Sher Ali Chandio, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Imtiaz Ali Panhwar, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, caused lathies and butt blows to complainant Muhammad Ismail and PW Muhammad Ali and then went away by threatening them of murder, for that the present case was registered.

2.         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 u/s.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 in order to satisfy its dispute over the landed property; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about sixteen days; co-accused Riaz @ Muhammad Ilyas has already been admitted to post arrest bail by learned trial Magistrate; therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of further enquiry and malafide.

4.         Learned Addl.P.G for the State has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant. However, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Qayyum Khan Vs. The State and others (2002 SCMR-273).

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

6.         The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about sixteen days and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause. The parties admittedly are disputed over the landed property. The case has finally been challaned. The applicant has joined the trial and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of pre-arrest bail on his part. Co-accused Riaz @ Muhammad Ilyas has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by learned trial Magistrate; 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.                     The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the applicant caused injury to the injured with intention to commit his murder. In the instant case, there was no intention on the part of applicant to commit murder of the injured.

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

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

                                                                                              JUDGE