ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-171 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

25.11.2021

                        Mr. Inam-ur-Rehman Abro, Advocate for the applicants.

                        Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, Assistant Prosecutor General for State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, caused injuries to complainant Sajid Ali, PWs Ayaz Ali, Rahib, Tarique, Aslam, Talib Hussain and Fayaz with butt, lathies and hatchets and then went away by insulting them, for that the present case was registered.

                        The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned           Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, 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 party on account of dispute over ownership of fish pond; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day; co-accused Dildar, Asad, Babar, Taj Muhammad and Riaz have already been admitted to bail; the offence alleged against the applicants is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC and there is counter version of the incident, therefore, the applicants are entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail, as they are apprehending their unjustified arrest at the hands of police.

                        Learned Assistant Prosecutor General for the State has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in commission of the incident.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. Co-accused Dildar and four others have already been admitted to bail either before or after their arrest. There is counter version of the incident, which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed upon? It requires determination at trial. The parties admittedly are disputed over possession and ownership of the fish pond. The case has finally been challaned. The applicants have joined the trial. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail on point of malafide in favour of the applicants obviously is made out.

                        In case of Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others Vs. The State              (PLD 2017 SC-730), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that;

“5. In this case, it appears that net has been thrown wider and the injuries sustained by the victims except one or two, have been exaggerated and efforts have been made to show that the offences are falling within those provisions of law, punishable with five years or seven years' imprisonment. All those aspects if are combindly taken, may constitute element of mala fide”.

                        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 of accordingly.

J U D G E