ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 611 of 2017.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

 04.05.2018.

1.       For orders on office objections.

2.       For hearing of bail application.

          Mr. Farooq Ali Bhutto, Advocate for applicant.

          Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.

~~~~~~~

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J: By way of instant application, applicant Kamran son of Muhammad Ali Bhutto seeks pre-arrest bail, in a case arisen out of FIR bearing Crime No.112/2017, for offence punishable u/s.489-F PPC registered with Police Station, Market, Larkana.

2.       I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.       The allegations against the applicant/accused as per FIR are that, he issued three post-dated cheques of Rs.500,000/- each, making total of Rs.1500,000/- to the complainant, out of which, one cheque on its presentation before the concerned bank was dishonored on account of insufficient funds.

4.       Perusal of record reveals that statement of the complainant is self-contradictory, as according to the F.I.R, an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was outstanding against the applicant/accused; while as per contents of legal notice issued by the complainant, he gave an amount of Rs.1700,000/- to the applicant/accused and in return the applicant issued him three post-dated cheques as “guarantee”, whereas, the contents of proposed FIR are totally divergent from the averments made by the complainant in his FIR.

5.       The contents of legal notice issued by the complainant to the applicant show that the applicant/accused issued him three post-dated cheques as “guarantee” but this does not show that, act of issuance of the cheque by the applicant/accused was done dishonestly. As such, the essential ingredient of Section 489-F PPC, that a cheque dishonestly issued and dishonored should be towards the satisfaction of a loan or an obligation of the giver is lacking in the instant case. There is nothing on record to show that, the complainant has either filed any suit for recovery or any civil proceeding to enforce his title and to establish his bonafide. No material is available on the record to show that the transaction as claimed by the complainant with regard to their business had actually taken place. Similarly, no any documentary proof was produced to justify that any loan or obligation is owed to the complainant by the applicant/accused. Moreover, the present FIR is delayed for about 45 days, for which no plausible explanation was furnished by the complainant.  

6.       Keeping in view the foregoing facts and circumstances, it prima-facie appears that the present case has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives on the pretext of ongoing dispute between him and the applicant/accused. Furthermore, the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. In these circumstances, the case against the present applicant/accused is calling for further enquiry.

7.       Consequent upon the above discussion, I find that the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out a case for confirmation of bail. Resultantly, the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused, vide Order dated 20.12.2017 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

8.       Needless to say that the observation made hereinabove is tentative in nature, which shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial.

J U D G E

Ansari/*-