ORDER
SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 559 of 2023
(Naseem versus The State)
Date Order with signature of Judges
For hearing of bail application
15.06.2023
Mr. Ahteshamullah Khan advocate for the applicant
Ms. Rubina Qadir, D.P.G.
M/s Muhammad Aslam Bhutta, M. Zareef Khan and
Mazhar Larik advocates for the complainant
-----------------------------------
It is alleged that the
applicant with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly
and in prosecution of its common object beside committing murder of Saleem, caused
hockey and dandas blows to P.W Sabir with intention to commit his murder, for
that the present case was registered. The applicant on having been refused by
learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East have sought for the same
from this Court by way of instant bail application under Section 498 Cr.P.C.
It is contended by learned
counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent is involved in this
case falsely by the complainant; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with
delay of about one day and there are general allegations of the incident,
therefore, the applicant is entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail on point
of further inquiry and malafide.
Learned DPG for the state
and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre-arrest
bail to the applicant by contending that they have actively participated in the
commission of incident.
Heard arguments and
perused the record.
The complainant is not an
eye witness to the incident; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay
of about 01 day; The 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W/injured Sabir has also been
recorded with further delay of one day even to FIR; such delay having not been
explained plausibly could not be overlooked. There is general allegation of
incident. The case has finally been challaned and there is no apprehension of
tampering with the evidence on the part of the applicant. In these
circumstances, the case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant on the
point of further inquiry and malafide obviously is made out.
In the case of Meeran Bux vs. The State and another (PLD 1989 S.C
347), it has been held by apex Court that:
“Since the appellant remained on bail for more
than one year before the bail was cancelled by the High Court without abusing
the concession of bail in any manner and the reason given by the learned
Session Judge for granting pre‑arrest bail that the injury was on non‑vital
part of the body of 'the deceased i.e. thigh and was simple, was not without
foundation, we would, therefore, in the circumstances, set aside the impugned
order of the High Court and restore the order of the Sessions Judge granting
the pre‑arrest bail.”
In these circumstances, a
case of grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant on point of further inquiry
and malafide is made out.
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.
J
U D G E