ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

 

Cr. Bail Appln. No.S-189  of 2011

 

 

DATE             ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

                         

15.04.2013.

 

Mr. M. Wasimuddin, Advocate along with Applicant.

 

Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh.

 

Ms. Kanwal, Advocate, holding brief on behalf of learned Counsel for complainant.

                                                =

 

            The Applicant was granted ad-interim bail before arrest by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2011 in Crime No.45/2011 registered at Police Station Town Mirpurkhas U/s 489-C, 420, 506(ii), 109 PPC subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.

            It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant crime whereas, per learned Counsel, even from the contents of FIR which was registered after about one and half year of the alleged incident, no role has been assigned to the present Applicant whereas none of the alleged offences fall within the prohibitory clause. Per learned Counsel, all the accused persons nominated in the FIR have been granted bail by the learned Trial Court whereas the bail before arrest application of the present Applicant was dismissed on the ground that the same has been filed prematurely as the challan was not submitted. Counsel for the Applicant states that the matter is proceeding before the Trial Court whereas the Applicant is continuously attending the Trial Court and has not misused the concession of bail hence ad-interim bail before arrest, which is pending since 2011, may be confirmed. Per learned Counsel besides being false and frivolous the case requires further inquiry whereas the Complainant has not come forward even to record his evidence before the Trial Court in spite of considerable lapse of time.

            Ms. Kanwal Advocate holding brief for learned Counsel for the Complainant opposes the request of learned counsel for the Applicant.

            Learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh though opposes the grant of bail however could not controvert the contentions of the Counsel for the Applicant.

            I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and perused the record. From the tentative assessment of the record, it appears that the contention of the Counsel for the Applicant appears to be correct. The matter requires further inquiry. The Applicant was granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail on 21.3.2011 and since then he is not reportedly misusing the concession of bail and attending the Trial Court regularly whereas the Complainant has reportedly not even recorded the evidence.

            In view of hereinabove facts, the alleged offences do not fall within prohibitory clause whereas involvement of the Applicant in the alleged crime also requires evidence. Accordingly, ad-interim bail before arrest already granted to the Applicants by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2011 is hereby confirmed on the terms as contained in the order.

            The Applicant is directed to attend the Trial Court regularly and shall not misuse the concession of bail granted by this Court.

            Bail application stands allowed in the above terms.

             

 

                                                                                    JUDGE