ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Appln. No.S-362  of  2007.

Date of hearing

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

18.6.2008.

For hearing.

Applicant Muhammad Ismail alias Jumo alias Juman Brohi is present in person.

Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, State Counsel.

              ----------------

          Applicant has approached this Court for pre-arrest bail in crime No.45/2006 of P.S Mahi Makol, for offence under Sections 324, 504, 34, P.P.C. He was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail on 16.7.2007 without touching merits of the case, which is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.

          According to F.I.R lodged by complainant Ali Asghar Brohi on 26.11.2006 at P.S Mahi Makol, it is alleged that on 25.11.2006 at 1.00 a.m (night), applicant Jumo alias Juman alongwith co-accused Muhammad Ibrahim, Wali Muhammad and one unidentified person, being armed with SBBL and DBBL Shotguns, entered into the house of complainant and attempted on the life of Muhammad Hussain, brother of complainant, by making fires upon him, resulting in causing firearm injuries to Muhammad Hussain on his right hand and both the legs. 

          Applicant present in person requests for adjournment, on the ground that his Counsel is not well.  Perusal of diaries shows that the applicant was granted interim pre-arrest bail on 16.7.2007 and since then the case was fixed for hearing on several dates, but was adjourned on the request of learned Counsel for the applicant.

          Learned State Counsel has pointed out that two accused persons are absconding, while the applicant is also not attending the trial Court.  The learned trial Court has passed order on the bail application, wherein it has been observed that on the basis of evidence available applicant is involved in the matter and that the criterion for pre-arrest bail and post arrest bail are different.  Keeping in view that after the grant of interim pre-arrest bail the applicant has not appeared before the learned trial Court, while the other accused are absconding, the applicant does not appear to be entitled for further relaxation.  It has been further observed that apparent statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C as well as statement of the complainant show involvement of the applicant, while for the purpose of pre-arrest bail it is to be seen that there is some alleged malafide on the part of the prosecution/ complainant or that humiliation has been apprehended for any reason.  Therefore, keeping in view the hard facts available, this matter is not fit for confirmation of pre-arrest bail.  The application is, therefore, dismissed.  The applicant, however, may file bail application after his arrest.

                                                JUDGE