ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-148 of 2024

(Tarique Ahmed vs. The State)

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For the hearing of the bail application.

01.07.2024.

Mr. Bakhtiar Ahmed, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Nizamuddin Bhutto, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State.

  -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with the rest of the culprits, in the prosecution of its common object, besides causing a butt blow to complainant Mumtaz Ali on his nose, threatened him of murder and then went away by insulting him, for which the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Larkana, has sought the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s. 498-A 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 only to satisfy its old enmity with him and the very case is on the verge of its final disposal, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and mala fide, which is opposed by learned D.PG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant by contending that the applicant has actively participated in the commission of the incident.

4.        Heard arguments and perused the record.

5.        The offence alleged against the applicant does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The parties are already disputed. The case has finally been challaned and in the very case is said to be on the verge of its final disposal. There is no allegation of misusing the concession of interim pre-arrest bail on the part of the applicant, as such he is found entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail on the point of further inquiry and mala fide.

6.        In the case of Meeran Bux Vs. The State and others (PLD 1989 SC-347), it is held by Apex Court that;

“Accused remained on bail for more than one year without abusing the concession in any manner before the bail was cancelled by the Court. Order of High Court canceling pre-arrest bail granted to the accused was set aside by the Supreme Court in the circumstances”

7.        Under the discussed circumstances, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. 

8.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE