IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-334 of 2018

Applicant               :                Ali Hyder s/o Fida Hussain Bhutto

Through Mr.Nooruddin Mahessar, Advocate

Complainant       :                  Rajib Ali Shaikh, through

                                                Mr. Mir Muhammad Bhagat, Advocate

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

Date of hearing   :                  11.10.2018

Date of order      :                  11.10.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant was charged for an offence punishable u/s.320, 279, 427, 337-G PPC, for committing mischief and Qatl-e-Khata of Ajeeb and causing injuries to PW Yaseen by way of rash and negligent driving of his motorcycle, for that the present case was registered. The applicant sought for grant of pre-arrest bail by making an application, it was refused to him by learned trial Court by making an observation that “the ingredients of Section 320 PPC are fully applicable which provides punishment upto ten years in addition to “Diyat” and it is not falling within prohibitory clause”. In these circumstances, the applicant has sought for pre-arrest bail from this Court by way of instant application u/s.498 Cr.PC.

2.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the offence was bailable in its nature, yet learned trial Court has refused pre-arrest bail to the applicant without any lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant.

3.                Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant were fair enough to concede that the offence is bailable in nature.

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

5.                It was an accident case, the offence alleged against the applicant as per Column No.5 to Schedule-II of Cr.PC is bailable in nature. In that situation, there was no justification for learned trial Court to have refused pre-arrest bail to the applicant under the pretext that the offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC.

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

7.                The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                             JUDGE

..