Abdul Sattar & others vs The State
This is a criminal bail application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail after it was refused by the trial court. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of a counter version of the incident, and a pre-existing property dispute over a fish pond. The Sindh High Court held that where an FIR is delayed without plausible explanation, a counter version exists making the aggressor a question for trial, and the accused have joined the trial, a case for further inquiry and malafide is established. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants, laying down the principle that such factors warrant pre-arrest relief.
- Whether an unexplained delay of eight days in lodging the FIR justifies the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the existence of a counter version of the incident create a case for further inquiry regarding who the aggressor is?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the accused have joined the trial and the dispute arises from a prior civil grievance?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah, J. It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object caused injuries to PWs Sudheer Ali and Muhammad Ali with hatchet and lathies and then went away by insulting complainant Ranjhan, for that the present case was registered against them.
2. The applicants on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 498 Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its grudge with them over possession of fish pond; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about eight days and there is counter version of the incident. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicants on point of further enquiry and malafide.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants.
However , learned A.P.G. for the State has recorded objection to grant of pre arrest bail to the applicants by contending that they are named in FIR with specific role.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about eight days; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. There is counter version of the incident. Which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed upon, it requires determination at trial. The parties are disputed over fish pond. The case has finally been challenged. The applicants have joined the trial. In these circumstanc es, case for grant of 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.