ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S – 40 of 2019

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of bail application

(Notice issued)

05.4.2019

Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed M. Junejo Advocate a/w Applicant

Mr. Achar Khan Gaoble Advocate a/w complainant

Syed Sardar Ali Shah, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J; It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object by put an attempt to commit theft of Goats of complainant Manghan Khan and others and on resistance not only committed Qatl-e-amd of Qaimduddin by causing him fire shot injuries but caused injuries to PWs Noor Muhammad, Fakir Muhammad, Khair Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad with intention to commit their murder, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) 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 applicant that applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely, there is counter-version of the incident and more so complainant Manghan now by filing his affidavit Manghan has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant. By contending so, he sought for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant as he according to him is apprehending his unjustified arrest.

4. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant.

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

6. There is counter version of the incident, which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed upon. It is yet to be determined at the trial. More so, complainant Manghan now by filing his affidavit has recorded no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant by stating that he in private faisla has been found to be innocent. If it is so, it is rightly being contended that the applicant is apprehending his unjustified arrest at the hands of police.

7. In case of Muhammad Najeeb vs. State (2009 SCMR-448), it has been held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that;

“complainant initially had nominated the accused in the FIR but later-on through an affidavit he has expressed his satisfaction with regard to innocence of the accused, the case of the accused was of further enquiry”.

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

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

Judge

ARBROHI