IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-439 of 2018

Applicant               :                Ali Sher son of Wajid Ali Golato

Through Mr.Mohsin Ali Khan Pathan, Advocate

Complainant       :                  Mansab Ali Lashari through

                                                Mr.Irfan Badar Abbasi, Advocate

State                    :                  Through Mr.Yasir Arafat, A.P.G.

Date of hearing   :                  05.10.2018

Date of order      :                  05.10.2018

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, committed Qatl-e-Amd of       Mir Hassan, by causing him fire shot injuries after declaring him to be “Karo” with Mst.Samina Khatoon and then away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.

2.                On having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, 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 by the complainant, there is delay of about 25 days in lodgment of the FIR, the role attributed to him in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing, the very case on investigation has been recommended to be cancelled by police under “B” class. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant as according to him he is apprehending his unjustified arrest.

4.                Learned A.P.G was fair enough to state that the case was recommended to be canceled by the policed under “B” class, as the cognizance of the incident on FIR Crime No.12/2018, 302, 311, 34 PPC of P.S Rasaldar, which was lodged on behalf of the State, has already been taken by the Court having jurisdiction.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he is vicariously liable for commission of the incident.

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

7.                Admittedly, the FIR of the present case is second in series. It was recommended to be cancelled by police under “B” class mainly for the reason that the cognizance of the incident/offence has already been taken by the Court having jurisdiction on the basis of investigation carried in FIR which was lodged on behalf of the State. Be that as it may, the FIR of the present case has been lodged with delay of about 25 days and role attributed to the present applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of making aerial firing, which has made his case to be that of further enquiry on point of vicarious liability. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of malafide.

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

9.                The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                             JUDGE

..