IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-262 of 2018

Applicants:                          (1) Shafi Muhammad Shar,

                                              (2) Muhammad Qasim Shar,

 Through Mr.Altaf Hussain Surhio, Advocate

Complainant:                       Jan Muhammad Shar, Through

                                                Mr.Abdul Faheem Thaheem, Advocate

The State:                             Through Mr. Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi A.P.G       

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 present applicants with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, fired at complainant Jan Muhammad with intention to commit his murder, robbed him and his witnesses of their money which they were having in their pockets, they took away with them PW Galib with intention to commit his murder by resorting to aerial firing to create harassment and threatening the complainant party of murder in case the incident is reported to police, for that the present case was registered.

2.                    On having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned trial Court, the applicants have 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 applicants that they being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party to avenge the long standing enmity, there is delay of four days in lodgment of the FIR, the very case on investigation was found to be false and recommended to be cancelled by the police under “B” class. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for applicants as they according to him are apprehending unjustified arrest.

4.                    Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that PW Galib has not yet been recovered by the police. 

5.                    Learned A.P.G did not oppose to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that the very case on investigation was found to be false.

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

7.                    The FIR has been lodged with delay of four days to the incident; such delay could not be lost sight of, the firing is ineffective one, the very case on investigation was found to be false and recommended to be cancelled by the police under “B” class, the learned A.A.G has not raised any objection to grant of bail to the applicants, the parties it is said are already disputed since long. In that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicants that a case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out in favour of the applicants.

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

9.                    The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                             J U D G E