ORDER
SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail
Application No.S-407 of 2021
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
Applicants: Farhat Ali and
another, through
Mr.
Sikandar Ali Junejo, Advocate
Complainant: Nemo
State: Through
Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi,
DPG
Date of
hearing: 01.10.2021
Dated of
order: 01.10.2021
O R D E R
Zulfiqar
Ali Sangi, J: Through captioned bail application, Applicants/accused
Farhat Ali s/o Phullan Khan and Mushtaque Ali son of Rehmat Ali Samejo, are seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.17/2021,
registered at Police Station Raza Goth, District Sukkur under sections 489-F,
420, 506/2, 504 and 34 PPC. Their earlier pre-arrest
bail plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pano Aqil, vide
order dated 25.06.2021. Hench they approached this court for the same relief by
filing present bail application.
2.
Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the bail application was
dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge
Pano Aqil only on the ground that the applicants have not joined the
investigation/trial though was directed at the time of interim pre-arrest bail. He next contended that the
applicants had approached the I.O but his statement was not recorded by him. He
prayed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the
applicants.
3. Learned
DPG has opposed the confirmation of bail and has contended that applicants have
misused the concession of pre-arrest bail granted by the trial court as they
were directed to join investigation but they failed to do so which comes in the
definition of misusing of concession of interim pre-arrest bail, therefore they
are not entitled for concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. I
have heard the learned counsel
for the applicant, Learned DPG and perused the material available on record
with their able assistance.
5. Perusal
of order dated 25.06.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Pano Aqil
reflects that interim pre-arrest bail was granted on 17.06.2021 and applicants
were directed to join investigation/trial, however no proof in respect of
joining of investigation/trial has been produced by applicants before the trial
court or before this court though chance was given to them to submit any proof
in respect of joining of investigation/trial and learned counsel submits that
he has no such proof that the applicants have joined the investigation/trial,
which reflects that applicants deliberately did not want to join the
investigation and misused the extra ordinary relief of interim pre-arrest bail.
In the similar circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deedar Ali
v. The State (SBLR 2010 SC 464) has also refused to grant concession of
pre-arrest bail.
6. In
these circumstances, I am of the view that the applicants have misused the
concession of extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail and are
not entitled for the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail. Resultantly, this
application is dismissed and the interim pre-arrest bail granted to them vide
order dated 30.06.2021, is hereby recalled.
7. Observations
made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to
either party at the trial.
JUDGE
Suleman Khan/PA