ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-434 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

25.11.2021

                        Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for the applicants.

                        Complainant Saleem in person

Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, Assistant Prosecutor General for State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicants by committing trespass into house of complainant Saleem, caused injuries to PWs Farman Ali, Najamuddin and Sadaruddin with some hard blunt substance and then went away by insulting the complainant party, for that the present case was registered.

                        The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, 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 in order to satisfy his grudge with them over demarcation of landed property; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 10 days and the offence alleged against the applicants is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC, therefore, the applicants are entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail, as they are apprehending their unjustified arrest at the hands of police.

                        Complainant Saleem by filing his affidavit has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants. However, 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 10 days and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The injuries sustained by the injured are not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. The parties are already disputed over demarcation of landed property. The case has finally been challaned. The applicants have joined the trial. More-so, the complainant now by filing his affidavit has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail the applicants. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail on point of malafide is made out.

                        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