IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J. It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, committed mischief by setting "oil seed dera" of complainant Azizullah on fire and then went away by making fires in air to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicant on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 498-A Cr.P.C.
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 in order to satisfy its dispute with him over the landed property; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about two days and the offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of malafide and further enquiry .
4. Learned D.P .G. for the State has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to grant of bail to applicant by contending that he has remained in absconsion for noticeable period and the absconder is not entitled to concession of bail normally . In support of his contention, he relied upon cases of Noor Qadir Tawakkal Vs. Chairman National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad ( 2007 YLR 550 ) and Muhammad Akram Vs. The State ( 2007 YLR 696 ).
6. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
7. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about two days and such delay having not been explained plausibly , it could not be overlooked. Admittedly , the applicant was not amongst the culprits, who actually set the "oil seed dera" of the complainant on fire. The involvement of the applicant on the basis of threats allegedly issued to the complainant on telephone is appearing to be significant. The parties are already disputed over the landed property . In that situation, the false involvement of the applicant could not be ruled out, therefore, it would be unjustified to deny concession of pre-arrest bail to him on point of absconsion alone.
8. In case of Mitho Pitafi vs. The State ( 2009 SCMR 299 ), it has been by the Honourable Apex Court that; "Bail could be granted, if accused had good case for bail on merits and mere his absconsion would not come in the way while granting him bail---High Court had not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective while declining bail to the petitioner".
9. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.
10. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly .