ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-466 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

09.12.2021

                        M/s. Ahmed Bux Abro & Sajid Hussain Mahessar,

Advocate(s) for the applicant.

Mr. Waqar Ahmed Chandio, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.Prosecutor General for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits,  after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by committing trespass into house of complainant Imtiaz Ali, committed murder of his sister Mst.Afroz Khatoon, by causing her fire shot injuries, for that the present case was registered. 

                        The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned           1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, has 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 applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its previous dispute with her; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day; no active role in commission of the incident is attributed to the applicant and co-accused Nazir Ahmed and Bashir Ahmed have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court; therefore, the applicant being lady is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail, as she is apprehending her unjustified arrest at the hands of police. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Arbab Ali Lolai Vs. The State             (2020 P.Cr.LJ Note-65).

                        Learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that she is vicariously liable for commission of incident. In support of their contention, they have relied upon case of Karim Bux Vs. The State (2000 SCMR-1405).

                        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 the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent of instigation; the parties are already disputed. In that situation, the participation of the applicant in commission of the incident on point of vicarious liability obviously is calling for its determination at trial.  In these circumstances, the applicant is found entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of malafide.

                        The case law which is relied upon by learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the accused after rejection of his pre-arrest bail preferred to remain in absconsion for more than five months. In the instant matter, there is no absconsion on the part of applicant.

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

                        The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E