Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Roshan Ali VS Respondent: The State
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Irshad Ali Shah Title: Roshan Ali vs The State Case No.: Criminal Bail Application No.S-1251 of 2020 Date of Judgment:2021-01-15 Reported As: 2021 SHC 94 Result: Application disposed off
Judgment ORDER Irshad Ali Shah, J. It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object have caused lathi injuries to Mst. Mehar Bibi and then went away by insulting and threatening complainant Ashique Ali of murder , for that the present case was registered against them. 2. The applicant on having been refused pre arrest bail by learned VIII-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 498 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 passage; co-accused Shahzeb and seven others have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court and complainant Ashique Ali now by filing his affidavit has also recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further enquiry and malafide. 4. Learned A.P.G. for the State who is assisted by the complainant has recorded no objection to grant of pre arrest bail to the applicant. 5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record. 6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about five days; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. Co-accused Shahzeb and seven others have already been admitted to bail by learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Learned A.P.G for the State with assistance of the complainant have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant. The parties are already disputed over passage. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail. 7. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.