LIAQUAT ALI & ANOTHER (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

HYDERABAD

Criminal Bail Application No.S-1079 of 2020

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1.For orders on office objections.

2.For hearing of main case.

Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Chang, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. Sobia Bhatti, Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.

Mrs. Habiba Raza Hussain, Advocate for the complainant.

Irshad Ali Shah J.- It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprit committed sodomy with PW Suresh Kumar, for that the present case was registered.

2.The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Tharparkar at Mithi, have sought for the same from this Court by making the instant bail application under section 498 Cr.P.C, which is objected by learned counsel for the complainant by filing her written objections.

3.It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by complainant party in order to satisfy its old enmity with them; the FIR has been lodged with delay of more than two months and no mark of violence was found on the person of victim. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicants on point of further inquiry and malafide.

4.Learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicants by contending that they have committed the offence which is effecting the society at large.

5.I have heard considered the arguments and perused the record.

6.The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than two months; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The 161 Cr.P.C statements of the PWs have been recorded on different dates, which appear to be significant. Provisional Medical Certificate does not suggest any mark of violence on the person of victim. The applicants have joined the trial. The parties are said to be disputed. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants 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 applicants is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

8.The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Muhammad Danish Steno*