IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-09 of 2023

Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S-43 of 2023

Applicants:	Khuda Bux & others
(in Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S-09/2023)	Through Mr. Faiz Muhammad M. Larik, advocate
Applicants
(in Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S-43/2023)	Rabel @ Rabel Khan & another Through Mr. Faiz Muhammad M. Larik, advocate
Complainant	Hafiz Muhammad Ibrahim
	Through M/s Ashfaq Hussain Abro and Mir Khan Jakhrani, advocates
The State	Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State
Date of hearing:	09-03-2023
Date of order:	09-03-2023

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through these two criminal bail applications, applicants/accused Khuda Bux and others seek confirmation of interim pre-arrest-bail in Crime No.221/2022, registered at Police Station Kashmore for the offence U/S 382, 457, 427, 337-H(2) P.P.C, after rejection of their bail plea by the learned trial courts two orders dated 06.01.2023 and 21.01.2023.

2. The facts of the incident are mentioned in the memo of bail application and the copy of F.I.R. is also attached with the bail application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same here.

3. Mr. Faiz Muhammad M. Larik, advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of the applicants in Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S-09/2023 and submits that the applicants/accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that there is enmity between the parties; that there is delay of five days in lodging of F.I.R, which has not been explained by the complainant properly; that nothing has been recovered from the applicants; that general role has been assigned against all the applicants and there is no direct allegation on any of the applicants. He, therefore, requests for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused.

4. Mr. Mir Khan Jakhrani advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant in Cr. Bail. Appln. No. S-43/2023, which is taken on record. Learned D.P.G. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail and submit that applicants are nominated in the F.I.R with specific role; that delay in the F.I.R has been explained by the complainant; that a huge amount and licensed rifle including cattle were robbed by the applicants/accused; that during investigation section 395 P.P.C has  been applied; that no malafide has been pointed out against the complainant for falsely implication; therefore, they are not entitled for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the material available on the record with their able assistance.

6. Admittedly there is delay of 05 days in lodging of F.I.R, however, in a manner, where incident took place, normally the police is not registering the F.I.R in these types of crimes as to concealed ratio of crime in the jurisdiction of police station. From the material available on the record, it reflects that 38 empties of Kalashnikov were recovered from the place of incident and 16 bullets were hit at the wall, therefore, it cannot be said that the incident was not taken place. However, the applicants are nominated in the F.I.R with specific role of snatching cash and licensed rifle and cattles. The alleged offence is against the society and now-a-days these crimes of robberies, snatching and theft are increasing day-by-day, therefore, there is need of deterrence. Moreover, the offence for which the applicants have been involved falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. No mala fide or ill will has been alleged on the part of complainant or against the investigation officer by the learned counsel for the applicants, which is a prime consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail. The pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and is only available in cases where there has been some mala fide on the part of the complainant or the investigating agency which are lacking in the present case.

7. In view of above reasons, I am of the view that prima facie there are sufficient material available on record to connect the present applicants with the alleged offence, learned counsel for applicants has failed to make out a case for bail. Resultantly both criminal bail applications are hereby dismissed. Interim orders passed earlier dated 12.01.2023 and 02.02.2023 are hereby recalled.

8. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned trial court while deciding the case of either party at trial.

J U D G E

Abdul Salam/P.A