ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-158 of 2020

DATE                    ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application.

30.04.2020.

Mr.Muhammad Ismail Chandio, Advocate for the applicant.

                   Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G for the State.

                                                            -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Irshad Ali Shah-J; It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant with rest of the culprits in collusion with each other, prepared a family pension case in favour of Mst.Janat Khatoon, purporting her to be widow of Fida Hussain Brohi forging/declaring him to be a Masjid School Teacher, Jacobabad, who infact was not an employee of Education Department but was serving in Pakistan Army, thereby caused considerable loss to the public money and undue favour to them, for that the present case was registered.

2.                The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Larkana, has sought for the same from this Court by way of application under section 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 police otherwise she has nothing to do with preparation of subject pension case; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about one year; Section 409 PPC is not applicable to her case and co-accused Muhammad Ali and two others have already been admitted to bail by this Court and no useful purpose would be served, if the applicant being lady is taken into custody and then is admitted to bail on point of consistency.

4.       Learned D.P.G. for the State has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that she has caused considerable loss to public money by forging fake appointment order and pension case. 

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

6.       The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one year; such delay in lodgment of the FIR could not be overlooked; the case is mainly based on documentary evidence, which has already been collected by the police; the case has finally been challaned and co-accused Muhammad Ali and two others have already been admitted to bail by this Court. In that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no useful purpose would be served if the applicant being female is taken in custody and then is admitted to bail on point of consistency. 

7.                In case of Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafarullah and another (1986 SCMR-1380), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that;

“no useful purpose was likely to be served if bail of accused (respondent) was cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he could again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused were already on bail‑‑Interference declined by Supreme Court”.

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

9.                The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E