2016 PLP 2507 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.

Applicants/accused were granted interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2016 and today it is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.

2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that on 11.03.2016 at 10.30 a.m. complainant Khawand Dino, his son Ali Dino and son-in-law Munawar Ali were offering FATEHA in graveyard. It is alleged that applicant/accused Zamir Ahmed armed with Rifle, Tajmal Hussain, Ajmal and one unidentified having lathis and co-accused Ayaz Hussain having knife (KATI) appeared there. Applicant Zamir Ahmed challenged the complainant party as to why they have come in graveyard when they were already restrained, hence they would not be spared. Saying so Zamir Ahmed directed Rifle upon the complainant party while co-accused Ayaz Hussain caused knife injury to Ali Dino on his head, remaining accused gave lathi blows to complainant party, they raised cries, which attracted the Mohalla people, the accused persons seeing them, went away by issuing threats of murder. Complainant lodged FIR on next day.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants/accused are innocent and they have falsely been involved in this case due to matrimonial differences; that the complainant is brother-in-law of applicant Zamir Ahmed and maternal uncle of applicants Tajmal and Ajmal; that the alleged offence does not come within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the role of causing knife injury to PW Ali Dino is attributed to co-accused Ayaz Hussain, who has been granted post arrest bail by learned trial Court vide order dated 28.03.2016 and certified true copy of such order has been placed on record, therefore he prayed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail. In support of arguments he placed his reliance upon case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafrullah and another (1986 SCMR 1380).

4. Complainant opposed the confirmation of interim bail, while learned, APG extended his no objection.

5. Perusal of record reveals that co-accused Ayaz Hussain has already been granted post arrest bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28.03.2016 and the case of present applicants/accused is on better footing than the case of co-accused Ayaz Hussain, only the difference is that Ayaz Hussain was arrested and was granted post arrest bail while applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail but it has been held by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ramzan (supra) that no useful purpose would likely be served if pre- arrest bail is refused to the applicants on any technical ground because they after arrest would again be allowed bail on the ground that co-accused in similar circumstances is already on bail.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the case law relied upon by learned counsel for applicants, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants/accused by this Court on 29.04.2016, is hereby confirmed on same terms and condition. SL/Z-9/Sindh Bail allowed.