ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-496 of 2021.

_____________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

______________________________________________________________

For hearing of bail application.

10.03.2022

                        Mr. Muhammad Bilal Bhutto, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Suhendar Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, robbed complainant Allah Rakhio of Rs.1400,000/- by causing him danda blow on his left elbow, for that the present case was registered.

2.         The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned             Sessions Judge, Qamber-Shahdadkot @ Qamber, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s.498 Cr.PC.

3.         It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one month and        co-accused Sameer Ali alias Sameer has already been admitted to post arrest bail by this Court; therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail on point of further enquiry and malafide.

4.         Learned Addl.P.G for the State has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant. However, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that he is conjointly liable for commission of the incident.

5.         I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6.         The FIR of the incident and 161 Cr.PC statements of PWs one after other have been lodged/recorded with considerable delay and such delay could not be overlooked. The injury sustained by the complainant is bailable in nature and the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the incident obviously is only to the extent of his presence, thus, the conjoint liability in commission of the incident on his part could only be determined at trial. Co-accused  Sameer Ali alias Sameer has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court; therefore, no useful purpose would be served, if the applicant is taken into custody and then is admitted to bail on point of consistency.

7.                     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”.

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

9.         The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                              JUDGE