ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-394 of 2021.
_______________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
_______________________________________________________________________
For hearing of bail application.
23.12.2021
Mr. Sarfraz Khan Jatoi, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. 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 fire shot, hatchet and lathi blows to PWs Zahid Hussain, Aijaz and Ghulam Asghar, with intention to commit their murder and then went away by making fires in air to create harassment and insulting complainant Ghulam Shabir, for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 498-A Cr.PC.
3. 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 its dispute with them over the landed property; co-accused Sajid and two others have already been admitted to bail after their arrest by this Court, therefore, the applicants are entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and consistency, as they are apprehending their unjustified arrest.
4. Learned Addl.P.G for the State has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest to applicants Mehar and Wahid, he however has opposed grant of pre-arrest bail to applicant Rahib; by contending that he has caused fire shot injury to PW Zahid Hussain.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in commission of the incident.
6. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
7. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about four hours. The role attributed to applicant Wahid in commission of the incident is only to the extent of instigation. The injury sustained by PW Ghulam Asghar which is attributed to applicant Mehar is bailable in its nature. The fire shot injury allegedly sustained by PW Zahid Hussain at the hands of applicant Rahib on medical opinion has been found to have been caused to him with some hard and blunt substance, which appears to be surprising. Co-accused Sajid and two others with utmost similar role have already been admitted to bail after their arrest by this Court. Whether, the injuries sustained by the above said injured were caused to them with intention to commit their murder? It requires determination at trial. The parties are already disputed over the landed property. The case has finally been challaned. The applicants have joined the trial and there is no allegation that they have misused the concession of pre-arrest bail. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail in favour of the applicants on point of malafide, further inquiry and consistency obviously is made out.
8. In case of Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafarullah and another (1986 SCMR-1380), it was held by the Honourable Court that;
“no useful purpose was likely to be served if bail of accused(respondent) was cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he could again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused were already on bail”.
9. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
10. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.
J U D G E