ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail App. No. S – 301 of 2019

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of bail application

28.06.2019

Mr. Sardar Akbar F. Ujjan, Advocate for the applicants / accused.

Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Applicants Fareed Ali, Akbar Ali, Bakhsh Ali alias Buxial and Sajan Ali are present on ad-interim pre-arrest bail.

2. Through this bail application, the applicants seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No.26 of 2019 under Section 302, 452, 109, 149 PPC registered at P.S Bhiria City. The pre-arrest bail applications moved by the present applicants have been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 30.04.2019.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned DPG, and my observations are as under:

(i) Perusal of the FIR reflects that apparently no role has been assigned to the present applicants except their alleged presence at the time of incident as the complainant has nominated one Ashique Kalhoro as the main accused who fired from his pistol. Along with these applicants, another applicant namely Ali Nawaz has already been granted post-arrest bail vide order dated 22.06.2019 by the learned trial Court.

(ii) Learned DPG has raised an objection that the learned trial Court, apparently due to some oversight, has granted the bail to Ali Nawaz on the ground that other co-accused have been granted bail by the High Court at Sukkur, whereas, according to him the other co-accused have not been granted bail finally and it is only an ad-interim pre-arrest bail, which has been granted by the High Court. Though to this extent his contention appears to be correct, however, perusal of the order of the trial Court reflects that the bail has been granted to Ali Nawaz on merits as well in the following terms:

“ I have gone through case papers and applied my judicial mind to the circumstances of the case; it reveals that there is no specific role attributed to the applicant/accused, neither he has caused any sort of injury to deceased nor witness, mere presence of applicant/accused is shown in the FIR. ”

(iii) Apparently, the present applicants have been assigned similar role, whereas, it is only alleged that they were present at the time of incident.

(iv) It is also pertinent to note that one accused has been granted post-arrest bail, therefore, it would not serve any further purpose if the present applicants are first refused pre-arrest bail and then are enlarged on post arrest bail. Reliance may be placed on the cases of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another reported as 1986 SCMR 1380 and Manzoor Ali v. The State reported as 2013 P. Cr. L J 649.

4. In view of hereinabove facts and the discussion, the present applicants have made out the case. Accordingly, their ad-interim pre-arrest bail is confirmed on the same terms as noted in the order dated 27.05.2019.

5. The Bail Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit