ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.B.A.No.S-193 of 2020

DATE                    ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail applications.

27.04.2020.

Mr.Safdar Ali Ghouri, 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 in collusion with rest of the culprits on the basis of fake and forged appointment letter purporting to have been appointed in Education Department got herself retired and then drawn pensionary benefits, thereby caused loss to the Public Ex-chequer to considerable extent and undue gain for herself, 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; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about one year; the section 409 PPC is not applicable to her case and co-accused Muhammad Ali and Fida Hussain 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 Fida Hussain 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 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