IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-465 of 2018

Applicant               :                Muhammad Tayab s/o Muhammad Qasim By caste Kandhro through

Mr.Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate

Complainant       :                  Ghulam Sarwar Kandhro through

Mr.Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate

State                    :                  Through Mr.Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G.

Date of hearing   :                  26.11.2018

Date of order      :                  26.11.2018

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, not only committed Qatl-e-Amd of Ameer Ali by causing him hatchet and fire shot injuries but caused hatchet and lathi injuries to complainant Ghulam Sarwar and PWs Muhammad Salleh, Abdul Ghani, Muhib, Badaruddin and Fayaz and then went 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 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Qamber, 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 the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant partly only to settle with him their dispute over the landed property, the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of causing lathi blow to PW Muhib Ali on his left thigh which is opined to be Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah. By contending so, he, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant, as according to him he is apprehending unjustified arrest at the hands of police which his motivated by the complainant party. In support of his contention he relied upon cases of Mumtaz Hussain and others Vs. The State (1996 SCMR-1125) and Wajid Ali Vs. The State and another (2017 SCMR-116).

4.                Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre-arrest 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, the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of causing lathi blow to PW Muhib Ali  on his left thigh, such injury on medical examination it is stated to have been opined to be “Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah”. The parties are already disputed over the landed property. In that situation, the applicant could hardly be refused bail 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 as he is apprehending his unjustified arrest at the hands of police which his motivated by the complainant party.

7.                In view of above, while relying upon the case law referred by the learned counsel for the applicant, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

8.                The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                          JUDGE

--