ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-388 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

10.09.2020

Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate for applicants

                        Mr. Imtiaz Ali Mugheri, Advocate for complainant

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

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

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that  the applicants with rest of the culprit, committed theft of motorcycle of complainant Raja Khan, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 498-A 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 in order to satisfy its previous dispute with them; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than one month and the offence alleged against the applicants is not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicants on point of malafide and further enquiry. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Muhammad Tanveer Vs. The State and another (PLD 2017 Supreme Court-733).

4.        Learned D.P.G. for the State has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicants.

5.                    Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of bail to applicants by contending that the offence which the applicants has committed is affecting the society at large. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Sikander Janwari Vs. The State (2002 MLD-113).

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

7.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than one month and such delay having not been explained plausibly cannot be overlooked. None indeed has seen the applicants committing the theft of the motorcycle and they have been involved in this case on the basis of information provided to the complainant by some witnesses that they have seen the applicants driving the stolen motorcycle, which appears to be significant. The investigation of the case is over. The parties are said to be disputed already. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants on point of malafide and further inquiry is made out.

8.                    The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants is having a preference over and above the case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant, simply for the reason that it is pronounced by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.

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

10.                  The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                    J U D G E.