IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-436 of 2018

 

 

Applicant               :                Karimdad @ Abdul Karim @ Papu s/o  Abdul Wahid Buriro, through

Mr.Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate

 

State                    :                  Through Mr.Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.

                                                Complainant and PW Hidayatullah in person

 

Date of hearing   :                  14.09.2018          

Date of order      :                  14.09.2018                   

 

O R D E R

 

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 using criminal force, caused lathi blows to PW Hidayatullah on to settle their dispute with him over measurement of the landed property of Asif Ali Khan Pathan,   for that the present case was registered.

2.                On having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s.498 Cr.PC.

3.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely, co-accused Bakhatullah, Babu and Ali Bux have already been admitted to bail, the offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause and the dispute between the parties over measurement of land could not be lost sight of. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of malafide.

4.                Learned A.P.G who is assisted by complainant Muhammad Aslam and PW Hidayatullah has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident.

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

6.                Admittedly, co-accused Bakhatullah, Babu and Ali Bux have already been admitted to pre-arrest bail. The injury sustained by the injured which is attributed to the applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. 161 Cr.PC statements of the PWs are recorded on 11th day of the incident without any plausible explanation to such delay, which appears to be significant. The parties are already disputed over measurement of the landed property. In that situation, it is rightly being contended by leaned counsel for the applicant that a case for grant of bail in favour of the applicant on point of malafide is made out.

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

8.                The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

  

                                                                                             JUDGE

-