IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Application No.S-321 of 2018
Applicants : 1). Mehmood Malgani,
2). Tariq Mehmood Malgani,
3). Mir Mehmood Malgani,
Through Mr.Irfan Badar Abbasi, Advocate
State : Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G,
Complainant Zaman Khan in person.
Date of hearing : 10.08.2018
Date of order : 10.08.2018
O R D E R
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by committing trespass into house of complainant Ghulam Akbar, by committing mischief set his household articles on fire and then went away by causing butt blows to PW Muhammad Yameen and making aerial firing to create harassment, 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 and malafidely by the complainant party on account of his dispute with them over landed property and passage. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicants as according to him they are apprehending unjustified arrest at the hands of police which is motivated by the complainant party.
4. Learned A.P.G who is supported by the complainant has opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in commission of incident.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. There is no recovery of empty from the place of incident which belies the complainant in his FIR that the applicant and others made aerial firing at the place of incident to create harassment. The injury sustained by PW Muhammad Yameen with butt blow (hard blunt substance) on medical examination was found to have been caused to him with some sharp cutting weapon which appears to be significant. The parties admittedly are already disputed over landed property and matter of passage as is narrated to be by the complainant in his FIR. In that situation, the involvement of the applicants by the complainant party on account of above said dispute could not be lost sight of. In these premises, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail as they are apprehending their unjustified arrest at the hands of police.
7. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants is confirmed on same terms and conditions.
8. The instant application is disposed of accordingly.
J U D G E