ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-328 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

10.08.2020

Mr.Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for applicant

                        Mr. Akbar Ali Dahar, Advocate for the complainant

                        Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

                        ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, committed       Qatl-e-Amd of Amjad Ali alias Aamir by causing him fire shot injuries, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant, on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s.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 complainant party in order to satisfy its matrimonial dispute with him otherwise he was not available at the place of incident; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day and he on investigation was found to be innocent by the police, therefore he is entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and malafide.

4.        Learned D.P.G for the State has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant while learned counsel for the complainant has objected to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he is involved in commission of the incident on point of vicarious liability.

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 day and such delay could not be lost sight of.  The role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of instigation, which appears to be significant, as he at the time of incident was not found to be present at the place of incident and on investigation he was found to be innocent by the police. The parties are already disputed over matrimonial affairs and co-accused Mukhtiar Ahmed has already been admitted to bail by this Court during earlier part of the day. In that situation, no useful purpose would be served, if the applicant is taken into 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 was held by the Honourable 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”.

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

9.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                     J U D G E