ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-429 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

25.10.2021

                        Mr. Muhammad Sharif Awan, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits took away motorcycle of complainant Manzoor Ali by insulting and maltreating him, for that the present case was registered. 

                        The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned           1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 498-A Cr.PC.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant on account of matrimonial dispute, otherwise no incident as alleged by the applicants has taken place; therefore, the applicants are entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail, as they are apprehending their unjustified arrest.

                        Learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that they have committed the offence only to settle their grudge against the complainant.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about ten days and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. Nothing has been brought on record by the complainant to prove his ownership over the motorcycle allegedly taken away by the applicants and others. The injuries sustained by the complainant are not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. The parties are already disputed over matrimonial affairs. The case has finally been challaned. The applicants have joined the trial. In these circumstances, it would be unjustified to deny of concession of pre-arrest bail to the applicants.

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

                        The instant bail application is disposed off accordingly.

J U D G E