ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S-693 of 2022

(Piyar Ali @ Piyaral Vs. The State)

1. For Orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of Bail Application

13-03-2023.

Mr. Saeed Ahmed Chachar, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Alam Sher Bozdar, advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy P.G for the State.

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object caused fire shot injuries to PW Mumtaz Ali with intention to commit his murder, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant on having been refused Pre-Arrest bail by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 498-A Cr.P.C.

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 party in order to satisfy its dispute with him over landed property; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about 01 day; there is counter version of the incident and there is no repeatation of fire shot, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and malafide.

4. Learned Deputy P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that the applicant has caused fire shot injury to PW Mumtaz Ali on his left leg with intention to commit his murder.

5. Heard arguments and perused the record.

6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 01 day; such delay could not be overlooked; there is counter version of the incident; the injury sustained by PW Mumtaz Ali is on lower part of his left leg, which is not vital part of his body, it is falling u/s 337F(iii) PPC; there is no repeatation of injury; the parties are already disputed over landed property. The case has finally been challaned and there is no allegation of misusing of concession of interim pre-arrest bail on the part of the applicant. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail in favour of the applicant on point 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.

Judge

Nasim/P.A.