ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S – 152 of 2019

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of bail application

25.3.2019

Mr. Abrar Hussain Chandio Advocate for the Applicant

Syed Sardar Ali Shah, D. P.G for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the present applicant with rest of culprits robbed complainant Shakir Ali of his belongings as detailed in FIR, for that he was booked in the instant case.

2. On having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge Naushehro Feroze, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 498-A Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy their dispute with him over money transaction; there is delay of about 7 days in lodgment of FIR; co-accused Saghir Ahmed has already been admitted to bail by this Court. By contending so, he sought for grant of bail for the applicant on point of further inquiry.

4. Learned DPG for the State has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

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

6. There is delay of about seven days in lodgment of FIR, same could not be overlooked; the identity of the applicant under the light of motorcycle is appearing to be a weak piece of evidence; parties are already disputed over money transaction and case has finally been challaned and co-accused Saghir Ahmed has already been admitted to post-arrest bail. In that situation, no useful purpose would be served, if the applicant is taken into custody and then is admitted to bail on point of consistency.

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

“‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑In a case of murder accused (respondent, was granted bail before arrest while other accused were granted bail after arrest‑‑Petitioner choosing to challenge bail granted to accused (respondent) before arrest and not challenging bail granted to other accused after arrest although latter were falling in same category to which accused (respondent) belonged‑‑Prima facie case of petitioner not distinguishable from that of other: to whom bail had been allowed‑‑Held, no useful purpose was likely to be served if bail of accused (respondent) was 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‑‑ Interference declined by Supreme Court.”

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

9. Instant Criminal Bail Application is disposed of in above terms.

Judge

ARBROHI