' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this application, the applicant has sought for pre arrest bail after his prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, in Criminal Bail Application No, 231 of 2008, during the investigation.
2. The allegation against the applicant is that he accompanying 14 others named in F.I.R. And 4/5 unknown persons duly armed with lethal weapons on 31-3-2008, at 4-00 p.m. Entered into the house of complainant and after damaging the house hold articles and others and removing some articles from trunks, left the scene of incident. It is alleged that due to annoyance on account of earlier dispute between the parties over matrimonial affairs, accused had committed this offence.
After the departure of the accused, the complainant found the articles and cash as disclosed in the F.I.R. Missing. On 3-4-2008, the complainant lodged the above F.I.R.
3. The applicant sought for anticipatory bail during pendency of the investigation but his plea did not find favour with the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, who declined the pre arrest bail to the applicant, hence he filed the present bail application on 23-4-2008, when he was admitted to interim pre arrest bail and today the case is fixed for confirmation of the interim pre arrest bail or otherwise.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that there was general allegation against all the accused and no specific role whatsoever has been assigned to any of the accused nominated in the F.I.R. Including the present applicant. That all the co-accused who are named in the F.I.R. Have been admitted to pre arrest bail by the learned trial Court. He prays for confirmation of bail on the ground of parity.
5. Mr. Abdul Rasheed Shah learned advocate for complainant states that case of present applicant is distinguishable from the case of all 14 co-accused who were admitted to pre arrest bail by the learned trial Court per him the applicant is involved in F.I.R. No,24 of 2008, under section 17(3)
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 of P.S. Abad, therefore, he is not entitled for pre arrest bail. Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro, learned advocate for the applicant placing on record photocopy of memo. Of order of Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, states that applicant was also admitted to pre arrest bail even in Crime No, 24 of 2008 of P.S. Abad.
6. Mr. Naimatullah Burgri, learned State Counsel frankly conceded to the confirmation of interim pre arrest bail to the applicants.
7. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed before the Court, I find that the case of present applicant Wahid Bux Khoso is at par to that of case of all 14 co-accused, who have been admitted to pre arrest bail by the learned trial Court. It is also stated that the applicant has since joined the trial and he is attending the trial Court regularly. Following the principle of rule of consistency the interim pre arrest bail earlier granted to applicant vide order dated 23-4-2008, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. The bail application stands followed.