Sikandar Vighio vs The State
This matter arises from a criminal case registered against the applicant, Sikandar Vighio, and others for house trespass and theft of gold ornaments, goats, and clothes. Having been refused pre-arrest bail by the trial court, the applicant approached the Sindh High Court through a bail application under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of delayed FIR registration, weak identification evidence, and the acquittal of co-accused with similar roles. The Court held that a case for pre-arrest bail on the point of mala fide was made out due to the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, weak identification under a solar light bulb, and the prior acquittal of co-accused. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicant was confirmed. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay in FIR registration, weak identification evidence, and the acquittal of co-accused with similar roles constitute valid grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail.
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR justifies the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused persons with a similar role provide a ground for granting pre-arrest bail to the remaining accused?
- Whether weak identification evidence under a solar light bulb makes out a case for pre-arrest bail on the point of mala fide?
- Section 498-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, by committing trespass into house of complainant Abdul Wahab, committed theft of his gold ornaments, two goats and the clothes, for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned 1 Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Dadu, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 498-A Cr.PC.
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 and co-accused Ghulam Sarwar and Sarmad have already been acquitted by learned trial Magistrate; therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail, as he is apprehending his unjustified arrest at the hands of police.
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State 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 two days and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The identity of the applicant under the solar light bulb is appearing to be weak piece of evidence and acquittal of co-accused Ghulam Sarwar and Sarmad with utmost similar role could not be overlooked. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail on point of malafide in favour of the applicant obviously is made out.
7. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.
8. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly .st