IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-412 of 2018

Applicant               :                Piyar Ali s/o Muhammad Ibrahim Machhi

Through Mr.Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate

Complainant       :                  Gulsher Ali Machhi, through

                                                Mr.Qazi Sajid Ali, Advocate

State                    :                  Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G.

Date of hearing   :                  10.10.2018

Date of order      :                  10.10.2018

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, caused hatchet and lathi blows to complainant Gulsher and his witnesses, with intention to commit their murder, thereby the complainant lost his right little finger and then the applicant and others went away by insulting them, for that the present case was registered.

2.                On having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, 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 party, there is delay of about ten months in lodgment of the FIR and very case on investigation was found to be false and recommended by the police under false “B” class. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant as according to him he is apprehending his unjustified arrest at the hands of police.

4.                Learned A.P.G for the State was fair enough to state that the case on investigation was recommended to be cancelled under “B” class.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of bail by contending that the applicant has actively participated in commission of the incident.                  

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

7.                There is delay of about ten months in lodgment of the FIR, which is not explained properly. 161 Cr.PC statements of the PWS are recorded with further delay of 10 days to FIR, which appears to be significant. There is no medical certificate in respect of injuries allegedly sustained by the witnesses of the complainant. The very case on investigation has been recommended to be cancelled by the police under false “B” clause. The parties are already disputed. In that situation, 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