ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 518 of 2022

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application

13.07.2022

Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan advocate for the applicant

Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan Addl. P.G

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits committed theft of gold ornaments and other belonging of complainant Farooq Khan from his house for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant, on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail 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; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about two years, yet it does not contain the name of the applicant and co-accused Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Aziz have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Magistrate. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide.

4. None has come forward to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant. However, learned Addl.P.G for the State has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that the principles for grant of post and pre-arrest bail are different.

5. Heard arguments and perused the record.

6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about two years, such delay could not be overlooked; the complainant is not an eye witness of the incident; the offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC, the case has finally been challaned, the applicant has joined the trial; there is no allegation of misusing of concession of interim pre arrest bail on the part of applicant, more so co-accused Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Aziz have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Magistrate. In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served to take the applicant in custody and then to admit him to bail on point of consistency.

7. In case of Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafarullah and another (1986 SCMR-1380), it has been held by the Honourable apex 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 the same terms and conditions.

9. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE