IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No. S- 78/2022.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on office objection at Flag ‘A’.

2. For hearing of bail application.

O R D E R.

28.03.2022.

Mr. Ellahi Bakhsh Jamali, Advocate along with Applicants/accused.

Mr. Ubedullah Malano, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Zulifqar Ali Jatoi, Additional Prosecutor General.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Through this order, I intend to dispose of pre-arrest bail application filed on behalf of applicants/accused Zulifqar Ali, 2) Najeeb-ur-Rehman, 3) Usama and 4) Kamran Ali alias Kamran in crime No. 08/2022, offence under sections 395, 324, 427, 147, 148 PPC of Police Station Adilpur, District Ghotki. Prior to this, the applicants/accused named above filed such application for grant of pre-arrest bail but the same was turned down by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC), Ghotki vide order dated 12.02.2022 hence they have filed instant bail application.

2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants/ accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity. He further submits that previously brother of complainant has also lodged FIR No.76 of 2021 against applicants/accused. Learned counsel for applicants/accused produced true copy of plaint of F.C Suit No. 50 of 2021 filed for possession and permanent injunction, instituted by Abdul Haque and others against applicants/accused. He further contended that the FIR is delay for about 13 days in lodging of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished. Lastly counsel for applicants prayed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant as well as Additional Prosecutor General have vehemently opposed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest already granted to the applicants/accused. Learned Additional P.G submits that before registration of FIR, an application under section 22-A B Cr.P.C was filed before learned Sessions Judge Ghotki, wherein report was called and as per report no incident has taken place. He further contended that during investigation, the statements of independent witnesses were recorded and they have stated that no incident has taken place as alleged by complainant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for complainant as well as Additional P.G and have gone through the material available on record.

6. Admittedly, the FIR is delayed for about 13 days in lodging of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished. Per learned Additional P.G the statements of independent witnesses were recorded and they have not implicated the present applicants/accused in the commission of offence. The dispute already going on between the parties over the landed property and such civil suit has been filed by the parties hence false implication of present applicants/accused cannot be ruled out hence the case of applicants become one of further enquiry.

7. In view of above discussion, learned counsel for the applicants/accused have made out a good case for confirmation of bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC, hence interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused named above is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

8. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicants on merits.

9. The bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

Irfan/P.A