IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-291 of 2018

Applicant:                                         Riaz Hussain son of Faqeer Muhammad,

                                                            Through Mr.Ghulam Muhammad Barijo, Advocate

Respondent:                                    The State through Mr. Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi A.P.G & Complainant in person.  

Date of hearing:                             23.07.2018             

Date of order:                                 23.07.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention caused hatchet and lathi blows with its back side to complainant Hasul and his wife Mst.Arbeli alias Arbab Khatoon, for that the present case was registered.  

2.                    On having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned trial Court, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 498 Cr.PC.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party, there is delay of about three days in lodging of the FIR, co-accused Fida Hussain has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Magistrate. By contending so, he sought for bail for the applicant as according to him, he is apprehending unjustified arrest at the hands of police.

4.                    Learned A.P.G and complainant in person have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident.

5.                    I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6.                    There is three days delay in lodging the FIR, the same could not be lost sight of, 161 Cr.PC statements of the PWs are recorded by the police with further delay of one day even to FIR which appears to be significant, the parties are already disputed and co-accused Fida Hussain has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Magistrate. In that situation, no useful purpose would be served if the applicant is taken into custody and then is admitted to bail on the point of consistency.

7.                    In case of Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafarullah and others (1986 SCMR-1380), it was held by the Honourable Court that;

“No useful purpose was likely to be served if bail of the accused is cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he could again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused were already on bail.”

8.                   In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.  

9.                    The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                             J U D G E