ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

HYDERABAD.

Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S- 157  of   2015

DATE     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

21.10.2015.

Applicant present on interim pre-arrest bail.

Mr. Muhammad Akhtar Shoro, Advocate for applicant.

Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G. for the State.

                   =

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J:         Applicant/accused Mumtaz Ali seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.80/2014 registered at Police Station Husri, Hyderabad for offences u/s 392, 215 PPC.

          Learned advocate for applicant/accused mainly contended that there is delay of 10 days in lodging of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished. He argued that co-accused Meeral has been granted bail before arrest by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge and the case of applicant/accused is identical. He has argued that robbed motorcycle has been recovered by police from accused Ghulam Hussain. Regarding malafide, it is contended that applicant/accused is servant of the complainant when he demanded money, FIR was lodged against him.

          Learned D.P.G. recorded no objection on the ground that co-accused Meeral has been granted bail before arrest by the trial Court.

          It appears that incident had occurred on 07.06.2014 and the FIR was lodged on 17.06.2014. There is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR, no plausible explanation has been furnished. Robbed motorcycle has been recovered from accused Ghulam Hussain. Co-accused Meeral has already been granted bail before arrest by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide his order dated 09.07.2014 for the following reasons:-

“Perusal of FIR shows that there is delay of about 10 days in registration of FIR, for which no plausible explanation is furnished by the complainant in the FIR. It further appears that the name of applicant/accused is mentioned in the FIR but no specific role is assigned to him in commission of alleged offence. It further appears that no private person was cited as witness of alleged incident. It further appears that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Prima-facie, present offence needs further inquiry at trial.

          In view of above circumstances, the applicant/accused is entitled for confirmation of bail. Accordingly, I confirm the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicant/accused on same terms and conditions on which the interim pre-arrest bail was granted. The application stands allowed accordingly.”

          Specific malafide on the part of complainant has been alleged, co-accused Meeral having similar role has already been granted bail before arrest by the trial Court, therefore, on the rule of consistency interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

                                                                             JUDGE

Tufail