1. By order dated 04.08.2015, the applicant was granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No, 55/2015 under Section 506/2, 337-A(ii), 147, 148, 149, 337-A(1)F(1), P.P.C. of P.S. Khanpur Mahar. Subsequently, the charge was framed and the matter was proceeded before the trial Court.
2. 09 out of 12 co-accused have been granted pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court, since there was no specific allegation against them. However, the applicant's pre-arrest bail was declined by the Sessions Court as apparently he was assigned a specific role. As mentioned earlier he came before this Court and ad-interim pre-arrest bail was granted to him. As per learned counsel for the applicant, he has been appearing on each and every date before the trial Court. He has also filed the statement which attaches the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (Family Court) Ghotki (Muhammad Saleem Awan), whereby the trial Court has in effect for time being, stopped the proceedings because the complainant as per the order has concealed himself and is not putting any interest in proceedings in the trial Court, and only appears to be interested in dragging out the matter. On page No, 2 of the order it is specifically mentioned that notwithstanding the proceedings being stopped the accused are directed to appear before this Court as and when they are called by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (Family Court) Ghotki.
3. This seems to indicate that at any time, the trial could commence and as such he seeks confirmation of his pre-arrest bail. Learned D.P.G. in this scenario has no objection if the pre-arrest bail to the applicant is confirmed despite being of the view that under the circumstances the bail application has become infructuous.
4. Mr. Abdul Waheed advocate holding brief for Mr. Shahid Ali K. Memon, advocate for the complainant seeks short adjournment and submits that the latter is busy before a D.B of this Court.
5. Since the nature of the offence is not one which requires the Court to hear the complainant. I consider that based on the facts and circumstances of this case an order can be passed in his absence. As mentioned above there seems to be little if any probability of the trial continuing in the near future. Under these rather unusual facts and circumstances despite no specific allegations of mala fide being made, I am of the view that it would serve the interest of justice if the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant was confirmed, Accordingly the applicant's pre-arrest bail is confirmed subject to same sureties as were imposed on the grant of his pre-arrest bail.
6. This application is disposed of in above terms.