IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

   Criminal Bail Application No.S-140 of 2018

Applicant               :                Manzoor Ali s/o Motbar Ali Kosh, Through Mr.Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate

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

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 present with rest of the culprits, after keeping complainant Nazir Ahmed under fear of death, by way of “Harrabah” take away his 20 cattles, 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 on account of his dispute with him over landed property, there is five hours delay in lodging of the FIR; co-accused Kajlo has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by learned trial Court. 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 has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident.

5.                    The notice of the bail application could not be served upon the complainant as he was found to be absconding in case FIR Crime No.85/2009, u/s.302 PPC of P.S Kashmore.

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

7.                    There is five hours delay in lodging the FIR, the same could not be lost sight of. The offence of “Harrabah” is not entailing the punishment of imprisonment mandatory, co-accused Kajlo has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by learned trial Court. 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.

8.                    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.”

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

10.                  The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                             J U D G E