ORDER SHEET
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No. 518 of 2022
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
For hearing of bail application
13.07.2022
Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan advocate
for the applicant
Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan Addl. P.G
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the
culprits committed theft of gold ornaments and other belonging of complainant Farooq Khan from his house for that the present case was
registered.
2. The applicant, on having been refused pre-arrest
bail by learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, has sought for
the same from this Court by way of instant bail 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 two years, yet it does not contain the name of the applicant and
co-accused Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Aziz have already been admitted to bail by
learned trial Magistrate. By contending
so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further inquiry
and malafide.
4. None has come forward to advance
arguments on behalf of the complainant. However, learned Addl.P.G
for the State has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by
contending that the principles for grant of post and pre-arrest bail are
different.
5. Heard arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged
with delay of about two years, such delay could not be overlooked; the
complainant is not an eye witness of the incident; the offence alleged against
the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC, the case has finally been challaned,
the applicant has joined the trial; there is no allegation of misusing of
concession of interim pre arrest bail on the part of applicant, more so co-accused
Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Aziz have already been admitted to bail by learned
trial Magistrate. In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served to
take the applicant in custody and then to admit him to bail on point of
consistency.
7. In case of Muhammad Ramzan
vs. Zafarullah and another (1986 SCMR-1380), it has been held by the Honourable apex 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 bail application is disposed
of accordingly.
JUDGE