ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-366 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

13.08.2020.

Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for applicant

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

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

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, by committing trespass into shop of complainant Lutuf Ali, committed theft of articles lying therein together with cash, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant, on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 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; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about two months; the identity of the applicant under the light of bulb was weak piece of evidence and co-accused Munawar Ali and Dadlo have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Magistrate. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of malafide and further inquiry.

4.        Learned D.P.G for the State has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

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

6.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about two months; such delay could not be lost sight of, as it has not been explained plausibly by the complainant. The identity of the applicant under light of bulb is weak piece of evidence. The offence is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC and more-so, co-accused Munawar Ali and Dadlo have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Magistrate. 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