ARBAB ALI LOLAI Versus State

ORDER

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.--- By means of the captioned bail application, applicant Arbab Ali son of Khuda Bux Lolai, has sought for pre-arrest bail in the case, emanating from FIR No.32 of 2019, registered at Police Station Sijawal, for offence under sections 302, 114, 147, 148, 504, P.P.C. after his plea for pre-arrest bail has been declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shahdadkot at Kamber, by dismissing his bail application vide Order dated 19.09.2019.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that FIR is delayed by 25 hours without proper explanation thereof; that only the role of instigation has been assigned to the applicant; that the role of causing hatchet and lathi injuries on the person of deceased Ahmed Nawaz is attributed to co-accused Haji Nabi Daad and Pathan; that co-accused Ubaidullah son of Arbab Lolai, who happened to be the applicant's son was found innocent and his name was placed in column No.2 of the challan; that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention due to previous hostility between the parties over the landed property; that the applicant is aged of 55 years and a heart patient, having recently undergone bypass heart surgery; and, that the applicant has since joined the trial and is regularly attending the learned Trial Court.

3. The complainant, who is present in person, prays that bail may not be granted to the applicant.

4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant, but he has not been able to controvert any of the contentions of the learned advocate for the applicant.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the applicant, the complainant in person, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have gone through the material available on the record.

6. From a perusal of record it would be seen that the incident is shown to have taken place on 03.07.2019 at 7:30 a.m., whereas the subject FIR was lodged on 04.07.2019 at 08:30 a.m. i.e. after 24 hours and in view of the fact that the applicant was empty handed and only the role of instigation has been ascribed to the applicant, false implication so far of the applicant is concerned in view of the previous hostility between the parties cannot be ruled out in this case; the applicant has since joined the trial and there is no complaint of his having misused the concession of interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to him. Under these circumstances. I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out his case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant vide order dated 29.09.2019 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

7. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

ADN/A-4/Sindh Pre-arrest bail confirmed.