ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr. B. A. No. 1070 of 2022

(Zafar Iqbal vs. The State)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(s)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For hearing of bail application

------------------------------

20.07.2022

Mr. Imtiaz Ali Samo, advocate for the applicant

Mr. Talib Ali Memon Asstt.P.G for the State

Muhammad Saleem Qureshi complainant in person

-------------------------------------------

Irshad Ali Shah J.—It is alleged that the applicant with rest of culprits was found involved selling and purchasing person(s) for purpose of prostitution and on being prevented from doing so, he threatened complainant Muhammad Saleem of dire consequences, for that the present case was registered.

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 application under section 498 Cr.P.C.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant only to satisfy his dispute with him over sale and purchase of the property and no specific date of incident has been disclosed in FIR. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on the point of further inquiry and malafide.

Learned DPG for the State who is assisted by the complainant has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that the offence which he allegedly has committed is affecting the society.

Heard arguments and perused the record.

No specific date of incident has been disclosed in FIR. None has come forward to make statement during course of investigation that he or she actually was sold or purchased for purpose of prostitution. The parties are alleged to be disputed since long. The case has finally been challaned; the applicant has joined the trial and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of interim pre-arrest bail on his part. In these circumstances a case of grant of pre-arrest bail in favour of applicant obviously is made out.

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

The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E