ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-363 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

07.08.2020

Mr.Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate for the applicant

                        Mr. Srichand Oad, Advocate for the complainant

                        Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General

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

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant issued a cheque in sum of rupees twelve Lacs dishonestly in favour of complainant Javed Ahmed on account of purchase of house, it 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 post-arrest bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 497 Cr.PC.

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; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about five days; there is dispute between the parties over sale and purchase of the house and the offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause of 497 Cr.PC. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further inquiry.

4.        Learned DPG for the State and leaned counsel for the complainant have recorded no objection to grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that the parties have compounded the offence outside of the Court.

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

6.        Admittedly, the parties are disputed over sale and purchase of the house. The FIR has been lodged with delay of about five days. The offence alleged against the applicant is not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC and learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant now have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled for grant of post-arrest bail on point of further inquiry.

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 applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

9.       The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                                     J U D G E