ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. B. A No. S-23 of 2018

Date	Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of bail application

13.04.2018

Mr. Shahid Ali Memon Advocate for applicant

Mr. Sikandar Ali Junejo Advocate for complainant

Mr. Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi DPG

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

                      It is alleged that present applicant has issued two cheques worth Rs.3500,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/-respectively in favour of the complainant dishonestly, which when presented before the Bank were bounced and he issued threats to complainant for demand of return of his money. For that he was booked in the present case. Present applicant was refused pre-arrest bail by learned V-Additional Sessions Judge Sukkur, now he sought for pre-arrest bail from this Court by way of filing instant application u/s 498-A Cr. PC. 

                      It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has falsely been involved in this case by the complainant party on matrimonial dispute with him. There is delay of eight months in lodging of the FIR. The offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497(ii) Cr.PC. The very case during investigation was cancelled by the police under “C” class. The applicant has joined the trial but the complainant is defeating the trial. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail to applicant as he apprehends unjustified arrest at the hands of police. In support of his contention he relied upon case of Zafar Iqbal vs. Muhammad Anwar and others, which is reported at 2009 SCMR 1488, case of Mian Muhammad Akram vs. The State and others, which is reported at 2014 SCMR 1369, case of Riaz Jafar Natiq vs. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others, which is reported at 2011 SCMR 1708, case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others vs. The State, which is reported at PLD 1995 SC 34 and Moiz Aly Manji vs. The State and others, which is reported at 2013 YLR 1198.

                      It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail by contending that he issued cheques in favour of the complainant dishonestly.

                      Learned DPG was enough fair to submits that the very case was recommended for disposal under ‘C’ class during investigation.

                      I have considered the arguments and perused the record.

                      There is delay of eight months in lodging of the FIR. The offence is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497(ii) Cr.PC. The parties are disputed over matrimonial affairs. The very case was recommended for disposal under ‘C’ class during investigation. The applicant has joined the trial and as per last diary dated 10.4.2018 of learned trial court, the complainant is defeating the trial. In these circumstances, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail in favour of the present applicant obviously is made out.

                      In view of the above discussion and relying on case law relied by learned counsel for the applicant, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

                      Instant bail application is disposed of in the above terms.

                                                                                      JUDGE

Rafi