ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-360 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

06.08.2020.

Mr. Irshad Ali Chandio, Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

                        ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant had a partnership with the complainant for sale and purchase of the plot, invested rupees twelve Lacs with the complainant and then asked him for return his money, which he returned in shape of cheque, which was bounced by the concerned Bank, when it was presented there for encashment, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant, on having been refused pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge Larkana, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 498 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 in order to satisfy his dispute with him over settlement of account; the FIR has been lodged with delay of one month; the very cheque was stolen for that an entry in roznamcha  was kept with relevant police station; the offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause of 497 Cr.PC and the very case on investigation was recommended by the police to be cancelled under false “B” class. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicant on point of further inquiry and malafide.

4.        Learned DPG for the State has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

5.        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6.        Admittedly, the parties were having business transaction over sale and purchase of plots. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than one month. The cheque allegedly issued in favour of the complainant by the applicant, it is said was stolen. The offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC and very case on investigation was found by the police to be false and was recommended to be cancelled under false “B” class. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail on point of further inquiry and malafide.

7.        In case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others vs. The State                               (PLD 1995 SCMR-34), it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that;-

“—Ss.496 & 497---Bail---Grant of bail in bailable offence is right while in non‑bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but concession/grace--- Grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than 10 years is a rule and refusal an exception.”

8.        In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

9.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                     JUDGE