ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr. B. A. No. 1185 of 2022

(Mustafa Vs. The State)

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

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(s)

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

For hearing of bail application

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

26.07.2022

Mr. Waqar Alam, advocate for the applicant

Syed Meeral Shah Bukhari Addl. P.G for the State

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

Irshad Ali Shah J.— It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention by committing trespass into house of complainant Huzaifa maltreated and insulted him, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant, on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned IX-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application under section 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 three months, offence alleged against applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause and co-accused Ali Akbar has 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 three months, such delay could not be overlooked; 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 Ali Akbar has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Magistrate. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant on the basis of further inquiry and malafide obviously is made out.

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

8. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E