ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail. Application No.S- 710 of 2020.

For hearing of Bail Application

23-04-2021.

Mr. Deedar Ali Chohan, advocate for applicant.

Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi, DPG for the State.

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention caused iron rod blow to complainant Abdul Ghani, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat, has prayed for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 498 Cr.P.C.

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 in order to satisfy his dispute with him over inheritance of the property; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about one month; offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 (ii) Cr.PC and co-accused Abdul Nabi has already been admitted to bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat. By contending so, he prayed for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide.

4. Learned D.P.G for the State has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that the applicant has actively participated in commission of the incident.

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

6. The FIR has been lodged with delay of about one month; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be over looked; the parties admittedly are disputed with each other over inheritance of the property. Co-accused Abdul Nabi has already been admitted to pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat and the offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 (II) Cr.PC, in that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant is made out on the point of further inquiry and malafide.

7. In case of Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others Vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC-730), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that;

“----Ss. 498 & 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(vi), 337-L(2) & 504---Shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah damiyah, ghayr-jaifah munaqqillah, other hurt, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Mala fide of complainant---Offences with which accused persons were charged were punishable by way of imprisonment which did not fall within the prohibitory part of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---When the accused persons were entitled to post arrest bail, their prayer for  pre-arrest bail, if  declined, would  be  a  matter  of  technicality alone---Accused persons were likely to be humiliated and disgraced due to their arrest at the hands of the local police---In the present case, it appeared that net had been thrown wider and the injuries sustained by the victims except one or two, had been exaggerated---Seemingly efforts had been made to show that the offences  fell  within  such  provisions  of  law,  which  were punishable with five years' or seven years' imprisonment---All said aspects, when considered combindly, constituted mala fides on part of complainant party---Accused persons were granted pre-arrest bail accordingly”.

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

9. The instant Crl. Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E

Nasim/Steno.