ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-178 of 2023

(Ali Asghar and another Vs. The State.)

DATE                          ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application.

08.05.2023.

Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate for applicants.

Complainant Muhammad Haris in person.

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

  -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, committed sodomy with PW Muhammad Arfat, for that the present case was registered. On having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions/Special Judge for Juvenile Cases, Kandhkot, the applicants have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under Section 498 Cr.PC.

2.         It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case by the police otherwise, the complainant by filing their affidavits before learned trial Court have already declared them to be innocent. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicants which is not opposed by learned Addl.P.G for the State and complainant in person.

3.         Heard arguments and perused the record.

4.         The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of 03 days; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked; it is reflecting consultation and deliberation. More-so, complainant Muhammad Haris and PWs Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Aslam by filing their affidavits have recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by stating therein that they have not committed the alleged offence. The case has finally been challaned and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of interim pre-arrest bail on their part. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants on point of further inquiry and malafide is made out.

5.         In case of Muhammad Najeeb vs. the State (2009 SCMR-448),     it has been held by the Apex Court that;

“---Bail, grant of---Complainant initially had nominated the accused in the FIR, but later on through an affidavit he had expressed his satisfaction with regard to the innocence of the accused and did not want to proceed with the matter---Courts below had failed to consider the said aspect of the matter---Case of accused, thus, was of further inquiry---Accused was admitted to bail accordingly [p. 450] A.

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

7.         The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE