IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-494 of 2018

 

 

Applicants              :               1). Irshad Ali s/o Darya Khan

                                                2). Sarang s/o Irshad 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 pre-arrest bail by learned 5th  Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, the applicants have 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 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 pre-arrest bail for the applicants, as according to him they are apprehending unjustified arrest at the hands of police.

4.                Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre-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 the applicants are entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail as they are apprehending unjustified arrest the hands of police.

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

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

 

                                                                                             JUDGE

..