ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S – 707 of 2018
Date Order
with Signature of Hon’ble Judge
For hearing
of bail application
1.
For orders on office objection at flag ‘A’
2.
For hearing of bail application
(Notice issued)
05.4.2019
Mr. Mushtaque
Ahmed Solangi Advocate for the Applicant
Mr.
Sundar Khan Chachar
Advocate for the complainant
Syed Sardar Ali Shah, DPG for
the State
>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<
Irshad Ali Shah, J; It is alleged that the present applicant with rest of
the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of
their common object caused fire shot injuries to PW Abdul Ghaffar
at his flank with intention to commit his murder for that the present case was
registered.
2. The applicant on having been
refused pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ubauro, has sought for the same from this Court by way of
instant bail application u/s 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 by the complainant party in order to satisfy their enmity
with him over matrimonial affairs, there is delay of nine days in lodgment of
FIR and co-accused Abdul Jabbar and Ali Gul have already been admitted to bail by learned trial
Court. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on
point of malafide.
4. Learned DPG for the State
and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre-arrest
bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in the
commission of incident by causing fire shot injury to PW Abdul Ghaffar.
5. I have considered the above
arguments and perused the record.
6. The name of the applicant is
appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that he caused fire shot injury to
PW Abdul Ghaffar at his flank with intention to
commit his murder, in order to satisfy his matrimonial dispute with him. In
that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent
has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. The matrimonial
dispute between the parties may be there, but it may not be reason for false
involvement of the applicant in this case. It is true that there is delay of
about nine days in
lodgment of FIR, but there could be made no denial to the fact that it is
explained in the FIR itself plausibly. The delay in lodgment of FIR even
otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. It is true that
co-accused Abdul Jabbar and Ali Gul
have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court, but there could be
made no denial to the fact that their case is distinguishable to that of the
applicant. No malafide is apparent of the record,
which may justify admitting the applicant to pre‑arrest
bail. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty
of the offence for which he is charged. Consequently, the instant Criminal Bail
Application for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant is dismissed.
7. The
order whereby the applicant was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail is recalled
and vacated.
Judge
ARBROHI