ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-240 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

13.08.2020.

Mr. Abdul Hakeem Brohi, Advocate for the applicant

Complainant Mst.Akhtiar Begum in person

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

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

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Zeeshan by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by causing fire shot injuries to complainant Mst.Akhtiar Begum and PW Irfan Ali, for that the present case was registered.

2.                    On having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, the applicant has 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 applicant that he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police, the FIR has been lodged with delay of about two days and complainant Mst.Akhtiar Begum and PW Ashiq Hussain have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant by filing their affidavits. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant, as according to him he is apprehending unjustified arrest at the hands of police.

4.                    Learned D.P.G for the State and the complainant in person have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant.

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

6.                    There is delay of about two days in lodgment of the FIR; the same could not be lost sight of. No injury either to the deceased or complainant and witness is attributed to the applicant specifically. The parties are already disputed. More-so, the complainant, PW Ashiq Hussain and learned D.P.G for the State have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is 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 the applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

8.                    The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                                                                          JUDGE