IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-503 of 2018

Applicants               :                       1). Siraj Ali s/o Darya Khan,

2). Asif Ali s/o Ashiq Ali, both by caste Siyal                  Through Mr.Ghulam Murtaza Jokhio, Advocate

Complainant           :                       Mst.Rehmat Khatoon through

Mr.Fayaz Ali Shah, 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 applicants with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention attempted to encroach upon house of complainant Mst.Rehmat Khatoon and then went away by making fires at PW Akash with intention to commit his murder, for that the present case was registered.

2.                    On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, the applicants have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s.497 Cr.PC.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant partly to settle her dispute with them over possession of house, the firing is ineffective one, there is delay of about one day in lodgment of the FIR. By contending so, he sought for post-arrest bail for the applicants, as according to him their case is calling for further enquiry.

4.                    Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of post-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in commission of the incident.

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

6.                    There is delay of about one day in lodgment of the FIR, the same could not be lost sight of. The firing is ineffective one. The alleged offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause. The parties admittedly are disputed over possession of the house. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are entitled to grant of post-arrest bail as their case is calling for further enquiry.

7.                    In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

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

                                                                                                                     J U D G E