ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-358 of 2020

 

Date of hearing

 

Order with signature of Judge

 

                                    For hearing of bail application.

10.08.2020

 

                                Mr.Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate for the applicant

                        Mr.Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

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

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that complainant purchased a house through the applicant for sum of rupees twenty one Lacs, paid him rupees six lacs and fifty thousand as earnest money, the applicant failed to metalize the contract, therefore, returned rupees four lacs and fifty thousand to the applicant in shape of cheque, which was bounced by the concerned Bank, when it was presented there for encashment, on being approached for return of his money, the complainant allegedly was threatened by the applicant of his murder, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant, on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1st 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 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 D.P.G for the State has recorded no objection to grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant by contending that the parties are disputed over sale and purchase of house.

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

6.        The cheque allegedly issued by the applicant fraudulently and dishonestly was dishonoured on 23.01.2020, while the FIR of the incident was lodged on 27.01.2020, with delay of about four days; such delay could not be overlooked. No city survey number of the house under sale is disclosed in the FIR. There is no agreement with regard to alleged sale of the house. 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 has 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