ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No. S – 233 of 2020

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of bail application

22.06.2020

Mr. Achar Khan Gabole Advocate for the Applicants

Mr. Manzoor Ali Chohan Advocate for complainant

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah J;- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits abducted boy Mairaj Ali, committed his murder and thrown his dead body in Chaff in presence of P.Ws Qurban and Imtiaz Ali, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur, have prayed for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 498 Cr.P.C.

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 party; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about 05 days; there is general allegation of the incident and the names of the applicants are not taking place in entry which was kept by the police at the instance of the complainant. By contending so, he sought for pre‑arrest for the applicants. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon case of Nooruddin Vs. The State (2005 MLD 1267).

4. Learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in the commission of incident and their names are taking place in FIR.

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

6. The deceased boy, it is said was abducted on 20.02.2020 yet no formal FIR for his abduction was lodged by the complainant, such omission on his part could not be lost sight of. The dead body of the deceased boy was allegedly thrown in presence of the witnesses on 22.02.2020 yet the FIR of the incident was lodged on 25.02.2020, such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The entry which was kept by the police at the instance of complainant is not taking disclosure of the names of the applicants, which appears to be significant. None has seen the applicants abducting the boy and / or committing his death. The parties it is said are already disputed. 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 on point of malafide and further inquiry.

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

8. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

Judge

ARBROHI