ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-372 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

03.09.2020.

Mr. Ahmed Bux Abro, Advocate for the applicants

Mr. Ayaz Hussain Kalhoro, Advocate for complainant

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

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

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits, by committing trespass into house of complainant Farooq Ahmed, robbed him of his belongings as are detailed in his FIR, for that the present case was registered.

2.                    The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, 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 in order to satisfy its old enmity with them; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about four days and the identity of the applicants under light of bulb is appearing to be weak piece of evidence. By contending so, he prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants on point of further inquiry and malafide. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Shehroze and another Vs. The State (2006 YLR-3167).

4.                    Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that they have committed the offence, which his affecting the society at large.

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

6.                    The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about four days and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked; the identity of the applicants under the light of bulb is weak piece of evidence; nothing has been brought on record which may suggest that the robbed articles were actually owned by the complainant party; the offence alleged entails with it imprisonment for life or imprisonment not less than four years and more than ten years; obviously the lesser punishment for grant of bail is to be considered; the parties are said to be already disputed. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicants that a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants is made out on the point of further inquiry and malafide.

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.

J U D G E