ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr.B.A.No. 573 of 2023

( Muhammad Akber vs. The State)

Date Order with signature of Judges

For hearing of bail application

07.06.2023

Mr. Muhammad Khan Buriro advocate for the applicant

Mr. Talib Ali Memon Asstt.PG for the State

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

It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits caused lathis blows to complainant Muhammad Karim and his son P.W Abdul Qayyum, thereby the complainant sustained fracture of his left little finger, for that the present case was registered. The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned VIII-Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Karachi West, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 498-A Cr.P.C.

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 with him his dispute over possession of house; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 05 days; offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause and co-accused Naseer with almost similar role has already been admitted to post arrest bail by learned trial Magistrate. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide. In support of his contentions, he relied upon case of Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser vs. The State and another (PLD 2021 S.C 708).

Learned Asstt. P.G for the state who is assisted by the complainant has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he has caused lathis blows to the complainant which has resulted in fracture of his left little finger.

Heard arguments and perused the record.

The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 05 days; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The parties being closely related are disputed over possession of house. The offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause. The case has finally been challaned and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of interim pre-arrest bail on part of the applicant and more so, co-accused Naseer with utmost similar role has already been admitted to post arrest bail by learned trial Magistrate. In these circumstances, no useful purpose is likely to be served if the applicant is taken into custody and then is admitted to bail on rule of consistency.

In case of Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafarullah and another (1986 SCMR 1380), it has been held by apex Court that:

“No useful purpose would be served if the bail of Zafarullah Khan respondent is cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he would again be allowed bail that similarly placed other accused are already on bail.”

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

Instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE