ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-160 of 2024

(Zafar Ali vs. The State)

 

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

 

For the hearing of the bail application.

 

04.07.2024.

 

Mr. Muhammad Sharif R. Awan, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Farooq Ahmed Gaad, 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, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of its common object besides causing the murder of Sajjad Hussain by causing him hatchet and lathi blows, also caused hatchet and lathi blows to complainant Frooq Ahmed, PWs Ghulam Sikandar and Khalid Hussain, intending to commit their murder too and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for which the present case was registered.

 

2.        The applicant having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, 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 is innocent and has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party to satisfy its dispute with him over the property otherwise he has nothing to do with the alleged incident, therefore, he 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 FIR of the incident has been lodged with a delay of one day; such delay could not be overlooked. The role attributed to the applicant in the commission of the incident is only to the extent of instigation, whether he participated in the commission of the incident with vicarious liability, it requires determination at trial. On investigation, the applicant has been let off by the police finding him to be innocent; such an opinion could not be overlooked. The parties admittedly are disputed over the property. The case has finally been challaned. There is no allegation of misusing the concession of interim pre-arrest bail on the part of the applicant. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant on the point of further inquiry and mala fide is made out.

 

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

 

7.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                                       JUDGE