ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Appln. No.S- 725 of 2018

1. For orders on office objection at flag ‘A’

2. For hearing of main case

(Notice issued)

14.01.2019

Mr. Amir Hussain Qureshi Advocate for the Applicants

Complainant Ghulam Nabi present in person

Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits by committing trespass into the house of complainant Ghulam Nabi caused hatchet, danda and butt blows to him and PWs Sher Khan, Hubdar, Ali Nawaz, Mst. Beena, Mst. Naseema, Mst. Naziran, Mst. Phaban and Mst. Umedan with intention to commit their murder and then went away by causing damage to their motorcycle and issuing threats of murder to them for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge Sukkur, have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application under Section 498-A Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely and malafidely by the complainant party, there is delay of about 09 months in lodgment of the FIR, the parties are already disputed over money matter and the offence is not falling within prohibitory clause. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicants as they according to him are apprehending unjustified arrest at the hands of the police which is motivated by the complainant party.

4. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant in person have recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that the parties have settled their dispute outside of the Court. By stating so the complainant filed his affidavit to that effect.

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

6. Admittedly there is delay of 09 months in lodgment of the FIR; such delay being un-plausible could not be lost sight of. The parties are already disputed over money matter, the offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C and learned DPG and complainant have recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants. In these circumstances, the applicants are found to be entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of malafide.

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

8. Instant Cr. Bail Application is disposed of in above terms.

Judge

ARBROHI