ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-598 of 2021.

_____________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

______________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

17.01.2022

                        Mr. Javed Ahmed, Advocate for the applicants.

Complainant Rashid Hussain in person.

Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Kalhoro, A.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits,  by committing trespass into otaq of Zawar Kashif Memon, robbed him and his witnesses of their mobile phones and other belongings, 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 police and the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about five days therefore, they are entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and malafide.

                        Learned A.P.G for the State has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants. However, the complainant has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by filing his affidavit.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about five days and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The identity of the applicants under the light of bulb is a weak piece of evidence and more-so, the complainant by filing his affidavit has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants. The case has finally been challaned and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of pre-arrest bail on the part of applicants. In these circumstances, the applicants are found entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and malafide.

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

                        The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE